(VigChr Supp 121) Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil - Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 CE) - A Survey of The Evidence From Episcopal Letters, 2013 PDF

Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410590 CE)
Supplements
to
Vigiliae Christianae
Texts and Studies of
Early Christian Life and Language
Editors
J. den Boeft B.D. Ehrman J. van Oort

D.T. Runia C. Scholten J.C.M. van Winden
VOLUME 121
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vcs
Crisis Management in Late Antiquity

(410590 CE)
A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters
By
Pauline Allen
Bronwen Neil
LEIDEN BOSTON
2013
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Allen, Pauline, 1948- author.
Crisis management in late antiquity (410-590 CE) : a survey of the evidence from episcopal
letters / by Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil.
pages cm (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae ; volume 121)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-18577-7 (hardback : alk. paper) ISBN 978-90-04-25482-4 (e-book)
1. Church historyPrimitive and early church, ca. 30-600. 2. Christian literature, EarlyHistory
and criticism. 3. BishopsCorrespondence. I. Neil, Bronwen, author. II. Title. III. Series:
Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae ; v. 121.
BR219.A45 2013
270.2dc23
2013021422
This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities.
For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.
ISSN 0920-623X
ISBN 978-90-04-18577-7 (hardback)
ISBN 978-90-04-25482-4 (e-book)
Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1
Crisis in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Defining Crisis in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Overview of the Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Population Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Natural Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Religious Disputes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Violent Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social Abuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Breakdown of the Structures of Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
Studying Late-Antique Crisis Management through Letters . . . . . . . .

Status Quaestionis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Using Letters as a Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Nature and Function of Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Question of Audience: Public or Private? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hybrid Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compilation of Letter-Collections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Epistolary Sources on Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Greek Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Latin Corpus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
11
14
16
17
18
21
23
26
26
28
Population Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Prisoners of War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Exile, Flight, Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Asylum-Seekers and Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
37
38
44
47
52
vi
contents
Case-Studies of Exiles, Refugees and Asylum-Seekers . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 1. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople
(428431). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 2. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe (c. 507533) . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 3. Vigilius of Rome (531555) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 4. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (423c. 466) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 5. Severus of Antioch (512518) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
Natural Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Food-Shortages and Famine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Epidemic Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Silence of the Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Studies of Natural Disaster Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 1. Cyril of Alexandria (412444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case-Study 2. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (423c. 466) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
71
72
79
83
86
91
91
91
94
Religious Controversies and Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Cyril and Nestorius: An Unfortunate Pairing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Eutyches: Letters Read and Not Read . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Council of Ephesus II (449) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
The Tome of Leo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Chalcedon and Its Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
The Acacian Schism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
Western Heresies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Arianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Pelagianism in North Africa, Italy and Gaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Priscillianism in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Donatism in North Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Review of Sixth-Century Christological Disputes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
Council of Constantinople II (553) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Case-Studies of Religious Conflict Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Case-Study 1. After Chalcedon: The Codex Encyclius . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Case-Study 2. The Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch
and Alexandria 564581 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
53
56
58
61
66
contents
vii
Social Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Usury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
Extortionate Taxation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
Human Trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Indentured Child Labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Alienation of Church Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Corruption, within the Church and without. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Case-Studies of Social Abuse Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Case-Study 1. Synesius of Cyrene (411413) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
Case-Study 2. Gelasius of Rome (492496) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Breakdown in the Structures of Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Failure of the Roman Legal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
The Bishops Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Case-Studies of Breakdown of Structures of Dependence . . . . . . . . . . 180
Case-Study 1. Augustine of Hippo (395430) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Case-Study 2. Pelagius I of Rome (556561) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Evidence for Crisis Management in Episcopal Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Strategies of Crisis Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Petitioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
Dogmatic Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Discipline and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Containment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Social Exclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Diplomatic Embassies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
Synods and Councils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Proscription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Violent Coercion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Liturgical Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Material Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Regionalism of Episcopal Responses to Crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Non-Episcopal Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
viii
contents
Appendix. Ancient Author Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Greek Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Alexandria and Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
Constantinople . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
Jerusalem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Armenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Antioch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Syria (outside Antioch). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Asia Minor and Surrounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Roman Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
Other Western Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
Italy (outside Rome) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
Gaul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Britain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Index of Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Index of People, Places and Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The current volume is the outcome of a three-year research project entitled Crisis Management in Episcopal Letters (410590 ce), which was generously funded by the Australian Research Council from 2010 to 2012. We
are grateful to research associates Sarah Gador-Whyte and Stephen Lake,
research assistant Sandra Sewell, editorial assistant Dinah Joesoef, and honorary research fellows Wendy Mayer and Jan van Ginkel, as well as the editorial team at Brill, for helpful suggestions and corrections. We would like to
express our thanks to Australian Catholic University for granting us both
study leave in the first half of 2012. Our work has benefited greatly from
scholarly interactions with colleagues in Belgium, Japan, South Africa, Italy
and Korea.
Pauline Allen
Australian Catholic University and University of Pretoria
Bronwen Neil
Australian Catholic University
ABBREVIATIONS
Allen, Neil, Mayer,

Preaching Poverty
ACO
ACW
CCCM
Brown, Poverty and
Leadership
CCSG
CCSL
CEn
CJ
CPG
CPG Supp.
CPL
CSCO, Scr. Syr.
CSEL
CTh
Coustant
DM
EDP
Ep./Epp.
P. Allen, B. Neil, W. Mayer, Preaching Poverty in Late

Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities, Arbeiten zur
Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte 28 (Leipzig, 2009)
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum, series 1, 4 vols. in 27
parts, ed. E. Schwartz (Strasbourg, 1914; Berlin, Leipzig,
1924); ed. J. Straub (Berlin, 1971)
Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster, MD, New York,
1946)
Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis
(Turnhout, 1966)
P.R.L. Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Later Roman
Empire, The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures
(Hanover, NH, London, 2002)
Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca (Turnhout, 1977)
Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout, 1953)
Codex encyclius, ACO 2/5, pp. 998
Codex Justinianus, ed. P. Krueger, Corpus iuris civilis
volumen secundum. Codex Justinianus (Berlin, 1905; repr.
Hildesheim, 1989)
Clavis Patrum Graecorum, ed. M. Geerard, vols. 15,
Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout, 19741987)
Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Supplementum, eds.
M. Geerard, J. Noret, Corpus Christianorum (Turnhout,
1998)
Clavis Patrum Latinorum, ed. E. Dekkers, 3rd ed., Corpus
Christianorum Series Latina (Turnhout, 1995)
Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium
Scriptores Syri (Leuven, 1903)
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
(Vienna, 1866)
Codex Theodosianus, eds. P. Krger, T. Mommsen,
P.M. Meyer, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1902; repr. Hildesheim, 1990)
Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae
sunt a S. Clemente I usque ad Innocentium III, ed.
P. Coustant (Paris, 1721)
Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas,
ed. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 17, Scr. Syr. 17 (Paris, Leipzig, 1908;
repr. Louvain, 1962); trans. in CSCO 103, Scr. Syr. 52
(Louvain, 1933; repr. Louvain, 1965)
Enciclopedia dei Papi, 3 vols. (Rome, 2000)
Epistola/Epistolae
xii
FOTC
Frend, Rise of the
Monophysite
Movement
Frag./Frags.
GCS NF
abbreviations
Fathers of the Church (Washington DC, 1947)

W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement:
Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and
Sixth Centuries (Cambridge, 1972)
Fragment/Fragments
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. Neue Folge
(Berlin, 1995)
Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1 A. Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, Jesus der Christus im
Glauben der Kirche 2/1, Das Konzil von Chalcedon (451).
Rezeption und Widerspruch (Freiburg, 1986; rev. ed.
1991); Eng. Trans. P. Allen, J. Cawte, Christ in Christian
Tradition 2. From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to
Gregory the Great (590604), part 1. Reception and
Contradiction (London, UK, Louisville, KY, 1987)
Glauben der Kirche 2/2, Die Kirche von Konstantinopel
im 6. Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1989); Eng. trans. J. Cawte,
P. Allen, Christ in Christian Tradition 2, part 2. The
Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century (London,
UK, Louisville, KY, 1995)
Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 3 A. Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, T. Bou Mansour,
L. Abramowski, L., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der
Kirche 2/3. Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien
nach 451 bis 600, ed. T. Hainthaler (Freiburg, 2002). Eng.
trans. T. Hainthaler, T. Bou Mansour, L. Abramowski,
A. Louth; Eng. trans. M. Ehrhardt, Christ in Christian
Tradition 2, part 3. The Churches of Jerusalem and
Antioch (Oxford, forthcoming)
Glauben der Kirche 2/4. Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit
Nubien und thiopien nach 451 (Freiburg, 1990); Eng.
trans. O.C. Dean, Christ in Christian Tradition 2, part 4.
The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after
451 (London, UK, Louisville, KY, 1996)
HE
Historia Ecclesiastica
Jaff
Regesta pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad
annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, eds. P. Jaff,
F. Kaltenbrunner, 2nd ed. 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1885)
JECS
Journal of Early Christian Studies
JTS
Journal of Theological Studies
LAHR
Late Antique History and Religion (Leuven, 2007)
LP
Le Liber Pontificalis, eds. L. Duchesne, C. Vogel, 2nd ed.,
3 vols. (Paris, 19551957)
MGH
Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1926)
AA
Auctores Antiquissimi
Chron. Min.
Chronica Minora
Epp.
Epistolae
abbreviations
SS
NBA
NF
ns
PG
PL
PLRE 2
PO
RAC
RE
SC
StP
TDST
Thiel
TRE
TTH
VC
WSA
xiii
Scriptores
Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana, Opere di SantAgostino
(Rome, 1965)
neue Folge
new series
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Graeca, ed.
J.-P. Migne, 161 vols. (Paris, 18571866)
Patrologiae cursus completus. Series Latina, ed.
J.-P. Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 18441864)
The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, eds.
A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, J. Morris, vol. 2,
AD 395527 (Cambridge, 1980)
Patrologia Orientalis (Paris, 1907)
Realenzyklopdie fr Antike und Christentum
Realenzyklopdie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft,
ed. Pauly-Wissowa (Stuttgart, 1893)
Sources chrtiennes (Paris, 1943)
Studia Patristica (Leuven, 1957)
Textus et Documenta. Studia Theologica (Rome, 1932)
Epistulae Romanorum Pontificum genuinae et quae ad
eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, ed.
A. Thiel, Fasiculus 1, 2nd ed. (Braunsberg, 1887; repr.
Hildesheim, Zrich, New York, 2004)
Theologische Realenzyklopdie, 36 vols. (Berlin,
19762004)
Translated Texts for Historians (Liverpool, 1988)
Vigiliae Christianae
Works of Saint Augustine for the Twenty-First Century
chapter one
CRISIS IN LATE ANTIQUITY
Rationale
Appropriate responses to environmental and social crisesby individuals, communities, governments, religious and charitable organizations
are increasingly under focus in the twenty-first century. The focus of our
research is episcopal crisis management in Late Antiquity, based principally
on bishops letters in Greek and Latin from the fifth and sixth centuries
(410590ce). The time-frame has been chosen to exclude at one end the
letters of John Chrysostom and at the other end the register of Gregory the
Great, both of whose letters have received recent scholarly attention.1 All of
Johns surviving letters date from his period of exile in Armenia (404407),
a curious phenomenon which skews the evidence of his epistolographical
activity. Due to the rationale behind the collection of Johns letters we have
no information whatsoever in his epistolary corpus about his time as a priest
in Antioch, and no systematic data about his period as archbishop of Constantinople. In general, then, we are thrown back on the evidence from his
homilies for crises other than that induced by his own exile from his church
in Constantinople. For this reason we have excluded Johns letters from the
corpus under discussion here.2
1 Poverty in the letters of John Chrysostom has been sufficiently analysed in the Poverty,
Welfare in Late Antiquity project of the Centre for Early Christian Studies at Australian
Catholic University. These letters are not fruitful for evidence of other kinds of crisis since
they derive from Johns period of exile, not from his time in episcopal office. See Allen, Neil,
Mayer, Preaching Poverty, pp. 69117. For Gregory I, see J.C.R. Martyn (intro., trans., notes),
The Letters of Gregory the Great, Medieval Sources in Translation 40 (Toronto, 2004); B. Neil,
M. dal Santo, eds., A Companion to Gregory the Great (Leiden, Boston, forthcoming).
2 Johns letters from exile will be dealt with briefly in Chapter 3, infra; see also W. Mayer,
John Chrysostom as Crisis Manager: Reading Back into the Years in Constantinople, in
eds. D.C. Sim, P. Allen, Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management Literature.
Thematic Studies from the Centre for Early Christian Studies, Library of New Testament Studies
445 (London, New York, 2012), pp. 129143; W. Mayer, The Bishop as Crisis Manager: An
Exploration of Early Fifth-Century Episcopal Strategy, in eds. D. Luckensmeyer, P. Allen,
Studies of Religion and Politics in the Early Christian Centuries, Early Christian Studies 13
(Strathfield, 2010), pp. 159171.
chapter one
So far there has been no study of the processes or ideology of episcopal

crisis management or crisis management in general in Late Antiquity. This
episcopal role became increasingly important as bishops assumed or were
given roles previously assigned to imperial officials.3 Late-antique episcopal
policies of religious inclusion/exclusion in response to crisis find contemporary resonance in the hardening of definitions of identity and political
boundaries between Christian, Jewish and Islamic societies post-September
2001. The outcomes of such policies in the religious communities of Constantinople have been studied primarily in relation to hagiography, i.e. the
Lives of saints,4 but not in relation to episcopal letters, which provide harder
evidence. Maier points the way to the use of letters and homilies in his sociological analysis of the politics of orthodoxy in fifth-century Rome.5 A similar
approach will offer a broader analysis of the politics of crisis management
in the eastern and western parts of the Roman empire over two critical centuries in Mediterranean history.
Due to the disproportionate influence of Browns work, Poverty and Leadership,6 scholars have examined the role of the late-antique bishop as lover
of the poor, champion of the weak and civic leader in the field of evergetism or public giving, without looking at the broader influence of the
bishop in managing social and religious crises. Brown defended his characterization of the fourth- and fifth-century bishop mostly from sixth-century
sources. A shift certainly seems to have occurred in the fifth century in the
way the bishop was seen, or expected, to act towards the poor and other
victims of crisis, but Brown provides no convincing or systematic evidence
for when or why that change occurred. This volume offers a more sustained
treatment of letters on the theme of crisis than has been available up to the
present, and carries the timeframe forward into the crucial sixth century.
While crisis in the later Roman empire was frequently cast in religious
terms as a way of making sense of a cascade of events that were beyond
human control and individual experience, such meaning-making did not
appear in episcopal letters, but was confined to homilies, chronicles, histories and literary prefaces. Letters were more concerned with practical aims,
3 B. Neil, Imperial Benefactions to the Fifth-Century Roman Church, in eds. G. Nathan,

L. Garland, Basileia: Essays on Imperium and Culture in Honour of E.M. and M.J. Jeffreys,
Byzantina Australiensia 17 (Brisbane, 2011), pp. 5566.
4 P. Hatlie, The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople c. 350850 (Cambridge, 2008).
5 H.O. Maier, Manichee!: Leo the Great and the Orthodox Panopticon, JECS 4/4 (1996),
pp. 441460.
6 See Abbreviations.
crisis in late antiquity
such as restoring security and predictability to lives in upheaval. The bishop

played a key role in defining what counted as a crisis and what did not. Due
to the limited means of information-transfer available to him, his terms of
reference were mainly local. This parochialism was a two-edged sword: the
bishop could control outside knowledge of what was going on in his own
diocese, but equally he could be kept in the dark as to what was happening
outside his own region. Unlike chronicles and ecclesiastical histories, which
were necessarily written some yearseven centuriesafter catastrophes
occurred, letters offered more immediate responses to regional crises that
had personal impact on the episcopal writer. They were crucial in connecting local personalities and those people in need as a result of crisis, with
their wider networks.
Defining Crisis in Late Antiquity
It will be useful at the outset to outline our understanding of the word
crisis. Much has been written in recent years on various crises in antiquity,7
mainly with reference to transformative events of epic proportions, such as
the turmoil in the western empire in the third century, the fall of Rome,
the beginnings of Arab hegemony, and so on. It has also been suggested
that instead of the word crisis we should be using terms like change,
transformation, or even anarchy.8 Given our concentration in this volume
on letters from Greek- and Latin-speaking bishops, it will become obvious
that the crises with which we are concerned are mostly of a local or regional
character; even what we might term perennial crises in human history, like
violence, acute poverty, famine and the plight of displaced or trafficked
persons, are usually dealt with at a local level, and most frequently by
bishops.
Another constant in all crises in Late Antiquity is that they are defined
from above, that is, by the emperor, bishop, or other civic leader who had the
7 A representative sample would include Av. Cameron, The Perception of Crisis, Settimane di studio del centro italiana sulalto medioevo 45 (1998), pp. 931; C. Witschel, Krise
RezessionStagnation? Das Westen des rmischen Reiches im 3. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Frankfurt
am Main, 1999); O. Hekster, G. de Kleijn, D. Slootjes, eds., Crises and the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire, Nijmegen,
2024 June, 2006 (Leiden, 2007).
8 See, for example, Cameron, The Perception of Crisis, p. 10; W. Liebeschuetz, Was
There a Crisis of the Third Century?, in eds. Hekster, de Kleijn, Slootjes, Crises and the Roman
Empire, pp. 1120, at p. 11.
chapter one
power to do something about them, notwithstanding the previous criterion

that they were usually dealt with locally. Finally, these crises were a normal
part of everyday life in the fifth and sixth centuries. Without extensive
communication networks, apart from letters, the capacity for averting or
even warning of natural and man-made catastrophes was extremely limited.
To sum up, the catastrophes and crises treated in our episcopal letters
of the fifth and sixth centuries had three dominant characteristics. They
were 1. regional; 2. personal, in their effect on the bishop; and 3. normal,
to a degree which the twenty-first-century reader might find difficult to
comprehend. This will emerge from the case-studies presented in chapters
3 to 7 below.
Overview of the Volume
The volume is focused on a critical period in European history, the fifth
and sixth centuries, when social and religious disturbances were rife, a
period which, however, has received little attention to date from the perspective of the bishop and of letter-writing as a tool of social control and
information-transfer. Apart from structural and episodic poverty in this
period, we have to consider as crises the following six problems, many of
which have received individual or partial treatment in the secondary literature but not from the perspective of the bishop.
Population Displacement
Population displacement in this period was usually the result of religious
dissent and/or barbarian invasion. It could also be the result of the poverty
cycle and food shortages, which forced inhabitants of rural areas to seek
employment and handouts in cities. Displaced persons included exiles,
prisoners of war,9 refugees and asylum-seekers. These phenomena and the
strategies adopted by bishops to deal with them are the subject of Chapter 3.
9 See the studies on those taken into captivity: in North Africa, C. Lepelley, Libert,
colonat et esclavage d aprs la Lettre 24*: la juridiction piscopale de liberali causa, in Les
lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 329342; in Italy: G.D. Dunn, The Validity of Marriage in Cases of
Captivity: The Letter of Innocent I to Probus, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis 83 (2007),
pp. 107121; and in Gaul, W. Klingshirn, Charity and Power: The Ransoming of Captives in
Sub-Roman Gaul, Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985), pp. 183203.
Natural Disasters
Catastrophic natural events included drought, famine,10 earthquakes,11 epidemic disease,12 and climate change.13 The socio-economic impact of such
disasters and episcopal responses to these events are considered in Chapter 4. Their representation in episcopal letters is also examined there.
Famine, in particular, was usually seen not as a natural disaster but as a
failure of leaderswhether the emperor, provincial governor or bishop
to manage the grain supply equitably. Episcopal attempts to make social
and religious meaning out of natural catastrophes varied dramatically, as
we shall see.
10 R. Dirks, Social Responses during Severe Food Shortages and Famine, Current Anthropology 21 (1980), pp. 2144, offers a survey of cross-cultural regularities in the physiological
and social-psychological consequences of famine. See also A.J.B. Sirks, Food for Rome: the
Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing of Supplies for the Imperial Distributions
in Rome and Constantinople (Amsterdam, 1991), passim, on the annona in Rome and Constantinople; and B. Sirks, The Food Distributions in Rome and Constantinople: Imperial
Power and Continuity, in ed. A. Kolb, Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte,
Prinzipien und Strategien der Administration im rmischen Kaiserreich (Berlin, 2006), pp. 35
44. On the famine in late fourth-century Cappadocia, see S.R. Holman, The Hungry Body:
Famine, Poverty and Identity in Basils Hom. 8, JECS 7 (1999), pp. 338363.
11 E. Guidoboni, A. Comastri, G. Traina, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century, rev. ed. of I terremoti prima del Mille in Italia e nellarea
mediterranea, trans. B. Phillips (Rome, 1994). On natural disasters of various kinds in antiquity, see the collections of essays in eds. E. Olshausen, H. Sonnabend, Naturkatastrophen in
der antiken Welt: Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 6, 1996,
Geographica Historica 10 (Stuttgart, 1998); H. Sonnabend, Naturkatastrophen in der Antike.
WahrnehmungDeutungManagement (Stuttgart, Weimar, 1999); D. Groh, M. Kempe, F.
Mauelshagen, eds., Naturkatastrophen. Beitrge zu ihrer Deutung, Wahrnehmung und Darstellung in Text und Bild von der Antike bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, Literatur und Anthropologie 13
(Tbingen, 2003), especially the contributions of H. Sonnabend, pp. 3744, M. Meier, pp. 45
64 and C. Rohr, pp. 6578.
12 See D. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine
Empire: A Systematic Survey of Subsistence Crises and Epidemics, Birmingham Byzantine and
Ottoman Monographs 9 (Aldershot, 2003).
13 I.G. Telelis, Weather and Climate as Factors Affecting Land Transport and Communications in Byzantium, Byzantion 77 (2007), pp. 432462; idem,
(Meteorologika phainomena kai klima sto Byzantio), 2 vols., .
/ Ponemata 5,12 (Athens, 2004),
with an English summary; P. Fahrquarson, Byzantium, Planet Earth and the Solar System,
in eds. P. Allen, E. Jeffreys, The Sixth Century. End or Beginning?, Byzantina Australiensia 10
(Brisbane, 1996), pp. 262269; J. Koder, Climate Change in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries?, in
eds. Allen, Jeffreys, The Sixth Century, pp. 270285.
chapter one
Religious Disputes
Persecution of existing sects and heresies, such as Manicheism, Priscillianism and Pelagianism continued throughout the period. The major new religious controversies of our period were the Nestorian controversy, the Eutychian heresy and so-called monophysitism, the Acacian schism, the Origenist controversy and the Three Chapters dispute. Four ecumenical councils were held in an attempt to settle these disputes. Bishops from East and
West were called to the ecumenical councils held at Ephesus (431ce), Chalcedon (451 ce) and Constantinople (553ce), as well as the notorious Robber
Council of 449.14 The roles of the patriarchs of the ecclesiastical pentarchy
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Romewere crucial
in determining the outcomes that flowed from each ecumenical gathering. Religious crisis reached a peak in the decades following the Council of
Chalcedon, with imperial interventions to enforce orthodoxy, and violent
reactions against it by the non-Chalcedonians.15 Such imperial interventions
were often the result of letters of petition from bishops in dioceses where
heresy or religious controversy precipitated crises. Local synods too provide
valuable evidence of bishops interventions in religious controversy. The
perception and treatment of extremists is inextricably linked with crises
of religious origins. These will be studied further in Chapter 5.
Violent Conflict
Violent conflict arose frequently in this period of wars, barbarian invasions
and gang fighting, but most particularly in the context of religious disputes.
Pagan-Christian clashes which had been rife in the third and fourth centuries continued to plague inhabitants of major cities in the fifth,16 and
14 The acta of these councils are found in ACO. See further R. Price, M. Gaddis, trans.,
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, TTH 45 (Liverpool, 2005); R. Price, trans., The Acts of the
Council of Constantinople of 553 with Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, 2 vols.,
TTH 51 (Liverpool, 2009).
15 See P. Allen, The Definition and Enforcement of Orthodoxy, in eds. Av. Cameron,
B. Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14. Late Antiquity: Empire and
Successors, A.D. 425600 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 811834; S. Ashbrook Harvey, Asceticism and
Society in Crisis: John of Ephesus and the Lives of the Eastern Saints (Berkeley, 1990); C. Horn,
Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-Century Palestine: The Career of Peter the
Iberian (Oxford, New York, 2006).
16 For the fifth-century literary interpretations of the usurpation of the pagan intellectual
Eugenius and the general Arbogastes (392394) as a pagan-Christian conflict, see M. Salzman, Ambrose and the Usurpation of Arbogastes and Eugenius: Reflections on PaganChristian Conflict Narratives, JECS 18/2 (2010), pp. 191223.
hostilities between Christians and Jews continued to gain in strength.17 In

the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon, religious divisions frequently
manifested themselves in violent clashes. A significant source of external
conflict in the fifth and sixth centuries were clashes with various barbarian tribes in the western Roman empire, such as the Goths, Vandals and
Huns, and wars against the Persians in the east. The Gothic wars in Italy
during the first half of the sixth century also produced much carnage and
loss of life. Such conflicts usually acted as catalysts for other types of crisis,
including poverty, food shortage, epidemic disease, capture of prisoners and
population displacement, all of which warranted intervention on the part
of bishops. Contested episcopal elections were also the occasion for riots,
especially in the streets of Rome. These very different kinds of conflict will
be studied in Chapter 5.
Social Abuses
Social abuses in this period included extortionate interest rates, peopletrafficking, indentured labour of free children and corruption within the
church and without. Corruption in Late Antiquity was as endemic as it was
critical, just as in many modern societies, and it encompassed both secular and ecclesiastical spheres. Bishops tried to manage this phenomenon as
best they could, sometimes with enthusiastic participation. Writing letters
of reproof and threatening deposition to priests and bishops who refused
to comply were two popular strategies, as was the deployment of defensores ecclesiae, those delegated by bishops to oversee the financial management of distant sees. Secular defensores were appointed to protect the
poor from tax extortion, but these were often guilty of abuse against those
they were supposed to protect.18 Corruption within the church was also rife,
17 E.g. the attacks by the populace against synagogues in Alexandria during the patriarchate of Cyril, registered in Socrates of Constantinople, HE 7.13.15; ed. G.C. Hansen, Sokrates:
Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF 1 (Berlin, 1995), p. 359; eds. G.C. Hansen, C. Gnther, P. Maraval,
Socrates, Histoire ecclsiastique Livre VII, SC 506 (Paris, 2007), p. 52, 5156. See S. Wessel,
Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic
(London, New York, 2004), pp. 3638 on the conflict between Cyril and the Alexandrian
Jews.
18 D. Grodzynski, Pauvres et indigents, vils et plebeians. (Une tude terminologique sur le
vocabulaire des petites gens dans le Code Thodosien), Studia et documenta historiae et iuris
53 (Rome 1987), pp. 140218 at p. 199; Brown, Poverty and Leadership, p. 57; C. Lepelley, Facing
Wealth and Poverty: Defining Augustines Social Doctrine, The Saint Augustine Lecture,
2006, Augustinian Studies 38 (2007), pp. 117 at p. 6.
chapter one
particularly simony, bribery and the alienation of church property for personal financial gain.19 These secular and clerical abuses are dealt with in
Chapter 6.
Breakdown of the Structures of Dependence
The various crises reviewed above led to the eventual breakdown of classical
structures of social and financial dependence. The stress on public and private resources resulted in wide-spread poverty throughout the later Roman
empire. The evidence of the mid-fourth to mid-fifth centuries suggests that
the gap between the very rich and the very poor increased in this period.20
Various regional studies have been made of bishops responses to poverty
and the poor, using for the most part homiletic evidence, such as Freus study
of Italian bishops homilies,21 and Holmans analysis of Basil and the two Gregories responses to the poor in Cappadocia.22 The breakdown of structures
of social and financial dependence, and the strategies adopted by bishops
to deal with these problems, including recourse to the civil legal system and
the bishops court (audientia episcopalis), are the subject of Chapter 7.
The phrase structures of dependence, used by Nicholas Purcell,23 neatly
encapsulates both the causes and consequences of a highly stratified social
structure, although people in Late Antiquity remained oblivious to continuing generational poverty and the structural reasons for that phenomenon.
All the aforementioned crisespopulation displacement, natural disasters,
religious conflict and social abuseshad a great impact on the stability
of existing structures of dependence. In the final chapter we offer some
conclusions regarding emerging trends and regional and/or chronological
differences in episcopal crisis management. We endeavour to ascertain the
19 For allegations of bribery against Cyril of Alexandria see L.R. Wickham, ed., trans., Cyril
of Alexandria. Select Letters, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 1983), p. 66 n. 8.
20 Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty. See also now G.D. Dunn, Poverty as a Social Issue
in Augustines Homilies, StP 49 (2010), pp. 175180; S. Sitzler, Deviance and Destitution:
Social Poverty in the Homilies of John Chrysostom, StP 47 (2010), pp. 261266; B. Neil,
Blessed are the Rich: Leo the Great and the Roman Poor, StP 44 (2010), pp. 533548.
21 C. Freu, Les figures du pauvre dans les sources italiennes de lantiquit tardive, tudes
d archologie et d histoire ancienne (Paris, 2007).
22 Holman, The Hungry are Dying.
23 N. Purcell, The Populace of Rome in Late Antiquity: Problems of Classification, Historical Description, in ed. W.V. Harris, The Transformations of URBS ROMA in Late Antiquity, The
Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of Rome La Sapienza, at the American
Academy in Rome, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 33 (Portsmouth, RI,
1999), pp. 135161 at p. 152.
success or adequacy of episcopal responses to crisis, and to identify those

who fell through the gaps of episcopal care.
Each chapter will be backed up by evidence from case-studies of fifth- and
sixth-century bishops dealing with particular crises through letter-writing
in Greek and Latin. The evidence of letters must be weighed against other
evidence, whether literary, material or documentary, to gain an idea of what
is left out of the epistolary record, either by accident or deliberate omission.
The methodological problems associated with using letters as a source on
episcopal crisis management will be treated in Chapter 2. An appendix lists
all those authors whose letters we have used as evidence, their modern
editions and other literary outputs.
Conclusion
One of the major challenges faced by anyone approaching late-antique crisis
is the need to jettison unhelpful assumptions which govern contemporary
understandings of such questions as: What constitutes a crisis and for whom
is it a crisis? What constitutes an appropriate response to crisis? Who holds
responsibility for crisis management? The answer to those questions in the
fifth and sixth centuries will prove markedly different from our own.
Many contemporary social and environmental crisesnatural disasters,
climate change, population displacement, the gap between rich and poor,
religious disputes, gang violence, social abuses, and an overloaded legal
systemfind resonances in the turbulent era of the later Roman empire,
410590ce. However, any attempt to anchor in their historical antecedents
contemporary responses to crisis is limited by the huge gulf between those
centuries and our own information age. As we demonstrated in a previous study comparing contemporary and late-antique responses to refugees
and asylum-seekers,24 the letter was a crucial vehicle for maintaining and
wielding episcopal authority in a crisis. In fact, the letter was the primary
vehicle of information transfer between significant social figures, who were
separated often by vast distances. Letters allowed the increasingly powerful bishop to convey religious and social policies to a broad audience, in
his own city and beyond. In absentia, bishops used letters to maintain and
extend their own networks of influence, offer consolation, impose clerical
24 B. Neil, P. Allen, Displaced Persons: Reflections from Late Antiquity on a Contemporary

Crisis, Pacifica 24/1 (2011), pp. 2942.
10
chapter one
discipline and effect social exclusion, as befitted the sort of crisis in play.
What stands out in the late-antique context is the dearth of alternative
strategies available even to such a powerful civic leader as the bishop. On
the other hand, the testimony of episcopal letters allows us to see that lateantique bishops were quite willing to intervene personally, even from exile,
on behalf of individuals in their sphere of influence who were in crisis. Any
attempt to ascertain the success or adequacy of episcopal responses in the
fifth and sixth centuries must eschew the application of modern standards
and expectations.
chapter two
STUDYING LATE-ANTIQUE CRISIS
MANAGEMENT THROUGH LETTERS
Status Quaestionis
Bishops in Christian antiquity were required to respond to a number of
larger or smaller crises, long- or short-term, particularly as bishops came to
take the place of local imperial officials. The letters which bishops wrote to
each other, to secular officials, to monastics, and to laypeople are a precious
source of information about how they responded to critical situations, as
we saw in Chapter 1, but the many letters themselves have never been
subjected to systematic investigation. Over the past 25 years scholars have
paid increasing attention to the phenomenon of bishops as late-antique
leaders. One of the first authors to do so was Lizzi, who confined her research
to the eastern Roman empire;1 she was followed by the now much-cited
collection of essays on the role of the bishop with regard to the city.2 We have
already mentioned Browns influential book, Poverty and Leadership, which
presented the late-antique bishop as governor of the poor,3 and inspired
works concentrating on the leadership role of the bishop.4 The mechanics
of episcopal succession were treated by Norton,5 and his work inspired
the international symposium on Episcopal Succession in Late Antiquity.6
Lizzi, Il potere.
. Rebillard, C. Sotinel, eds., L vque dans la cit du IV e au V e sicle: Image et authorit,
Collection de l cole franaise de Rome 248 (Rome, 1998).
3 Brown, Poverty and Leadership, pp. 4573.
4 Such as E. Elm, Die Macht der Weisheit: Das Bild des Bischofs in der Vita Augustini
des Possidius und anderen sptantiken und frhmittelalterlichen Bischofsviten, Studies in the
History of Christian Thought 109 (Leiden, 2003); A. Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading
the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, London, 2004); and C. Rapp,
Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition
(Berkeley, 2005).
5 P. Norton, Episcopal Elections 250600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity
(Oxford, 2007).
6 J. Leemans et al., eds., Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119 (Berlin, 2011).
2
12
chapter two
The role of the bishop of Rome as a major civic leader in the West has
been the subject of increasing attention.7 While the role of late-antique
bishop has rightly risen to prominence as a result of this international
research, the current volume is the first to study systematically the role
of the bishop in crisis management in general and as reflected in bishops
letters in Late Antiquity. Indeed, relatively few studies of late-antique letterwriters exist at all. Letters of Gallic bishops have fared better than most, with
several recent studies devoted to the letters of Avitus of Vienne, Ruricius
of Limoges and Faustus of Riez.8 To take a representative sample from
the bishops to be studied in our project, there are published studies of
the letters of Paulinus of Nola,9 Synesius of Cyrene,10 Augustine of Hippo,11
7 Witness to the surge of interest in this topic are the following studies: M. Salzman, Leo
in Rome: The Evolution of Episcopal Authority in the Fifth Century, in eds. G. Bonamente,
R. Lizzi Testa, Istituzioni, carismi ed esercizio del potere (IVVI secolo d.C.) (Bari, 2010), pp. 343
356; K. Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antiquity: Roman Bishops and the
Domestic Sphere (Cambridge, 2012); eadem, Exceptionality and Invention: Silvester and the
Late Antique Papacy at Rome, StP 46 (2010), pp. 7794; K. Uhalde, The Sinful Subject: Doing
Penance in Rome, StP 44 (2010), pp. 405414; G. Demacopoulos, Gregory the Great and the
Appeal to Petrine Authority, StP 48 (2010), pp. 333348; M. Sghy, Amator Castitatis: Pope
Damasus and the Politics of Asceticism, StP 45 (2010), pp. 4954; and the contributions of
G.D. Dunn, B. Neil, M. Sghy, G. Thompson, G. Demacopoulos and K. Uhalde to the Sixteenth
International Conference in Patristic Studies, 2011, to be published in ed. G.D. Dunn, The
Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity (Aldershot, forthcoming). The contributions over the last
decade of M. Humphries, K. Cooper, J. Hillner and C. Leyser should also be acknowledged,
especially their essays in eds. K. Cooper, J. Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early
Christian Rome, 300900 (Cambridge, 2007).
8 E.g. I.N. Wood, Letters and Letter-Collections from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages:
The Prose Works of Avitus of Vienne, in ed. M.A. Meyer, The Culture of Christendom (London,
1993), 2943; D.R. Shanzer, I.N. Wood (trans.), Avitus of Letter and Selected Prose, TTH 38
(Liverpool, 2002); M. Neri (ed. and trans.), Ruricio di Limoges. Lettere (Pisa, 2009); M. Neri,
Dio, lanima e luomo. Lepistolario di Fausto di Riez (R0ma, 2011). On Gallic letters in general
see R.W. Mathisen, Epistolography, Literary Circles, and Family Ties in Late Roman Gaul,
Transactions of the American Philological Society 111 (1981), pp. 95109; and the collected essays
in eds. R.W. Mathisen, D.R. Shanzer, Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul. Revisiting the
Sources (Ashgate, 2001).
9 Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel.
10 D. Roques, tudes sur la correspondance de Synsios de Cyrne, Collection Latomus 205
(Brussels, 1989).
11 F. Morgenstern, Die Briefpartner des Augustinus von Hippo. Prosopographische, sozialund ideologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Bochum, 1993); P. Allen, The Horizons of a
Bishops World: The Letters of Augustine of Hippo, in eds. W. Mayer, P. Allen, L. Cross, Prayer
and Spirituality in the Early Church, vol. 4, The Spiritual Life (Strathfield, 2006), pp. 327337;
eadem, Its in the Post: Techniques and Difficulties of Letter-Writing in Antiquity with regard
to Augustine of Hippo, A.D. Trendall Memorial Lecture 2005, The Australian Academy of the
Humanities, Proceedings 2005 (Canberra, 2006), pp. 111129.
studying late-antique crisis management through letters
13
Leo of Rome,12 Sidonius Apollinaris,13 Theodoret of Cyrrhus14 and Severus of

Antioch.15
A number of perspectives on crisis management in Late Antiquity have
received individual attention in the past two or three decades. In terms of
western (Latin) sources, C. Witschel offered a study of crises of the third century, presented according to the regions of the western Roman empire in
which they occurred.16 M. Salzman has been working on religious responses
to crisis for some years in relation to Jerome, Leo the Great and Gelasius in fifth-century Rome.17 In terms of eastern (Greek) sources, the best
study to date remains that of Holman on the Cappadocian bishops and
their approaches to economic and environmental crises, especially drought,
which resulted in famine, unemployment, slavery and extortion.18 Holmans
research focused mainly on Greek homiletic evidence in translation, and
concludes with the end of the fourth century. No comparable study of the
Syrian material has yet been made.
The bishops of Rome adopted conscientious, consistent, and elaborate
bureaucratic strategies to archive much of their correspondence. Our findings complement G. Dunns ongoing work on the letters of Innocent I, at
the beginning of our timeframe (401/2417),19 and also round out the partial
12 S. Pietrini, Religio e ius romanum nellepistolario di Leone Magno, Materiali per una
palingenesi delle costituzioni tardo-imperiali 6 (Milan, 2002); B. Neil, On True Humility:
An Anonymous Letter on Poverty and the Female Ascetic, in eds. Mayer, Allen, Cross, The
Spiritual Life, pp. 233246; eadem, Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers (London, New
York, 2009).
13 J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome, A.D. 407485 (Oxford, 1994); J.A. van
Waarden, Writing to Survive. A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters Book 7, vol. 1: The
Episcopal Letters 111, LAHR 2 (Leuven, 2010).
14 M.M. Wagner, A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography: The Letters of Theodoret of
Cyrus, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948), pp. 121179.
15 P. Allen, C.T.R. Hayward, Severus of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers (London, New
York, 2004); P. Allen, The Syrian Church through Bishops Eyes: The Letters of Theodoret of
Cyrrhus and Severus of Antioch, StP 42 (2006), pp. 321.
16 Witschel, KriseRezessionStagnation.
17 We note M. Salzmans unpublished public lecture at Catholic University of America,
Washington DC, on Episcopal Responses to Crisis in the Fifth-Century Roman Empire, on
8 April 2010; and her forthcoming chapter, Reconsidering a Relationship: Pope Leo of Rome
and Prosper of Aquitaine, in ed. G.D. Dunn, The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity (Aldershot,
forthcoming).
18 S.R. Holman, The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia, Oxford
Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford, 2001).
19 G.D. Dunn, Roman Primacy in the Correspondence between Innocent I and John
Chrysostom, in Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, xxxiii Incontro di
studiosi dellantichit cristiana, Roma 68 maggio 2004, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum
14
chapter two
treatment of papal letters in Jasper and Fuhrmann.20 Gregory the Great

marks a turning-point in the archiving of papal correspondence, as illustrated by the register of over 800 surviving letters attributed to him. Thus
the beginning of Gregorys episcopacy in 590 ce marks the end of our investigation. The western approach to archiving letters can be seen to contrast
with that of the Greek-speaking part of the late-antique world, particularly
after the turmoil and acrimony caused by the Council of Chalcedon (451ce).
Using Letters as a Source21
The apparent explosion of epistolary practice in Late Antiquity has been
noted recently;22 together with the fact that our most substantial evidence
for Greek and Latin letter-writing and collection practices is late antique.23
93/2 (Rome, 2005), pp. 687698; idem, The Date of Innocent Is Epistula 12 and the Second
Exile of John Chrysostom, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 45 (2005), pp. 155170; idem,
Innocent I and the Attacks on the Bethlehem Monasteries, Journal of the Australian Early
Medieval Association 2 (2006), pp. 6983; idem, Innocent I and Anysius of Thessalonica,
Byzantion 77 (2007), pp. 124148; idem, Innocent I and the Illyrian Churches on the Question
of Heretical Ordination, Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association 4 (2008), pp. 77
93; idem, Innocent I and Rufus of Thessalonica, Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinistik
59 (2009), pp. 5164; idem, Innocent Is Letter to Lawrence: Photinians, Bonosians, and the
Defensores Ecclesiae, JTS ns 63 (2012), pp. 136155.
20 D. Jasper, H. Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, History of Medieval
Canon Law (Washington, DC, 2001).
21 Cf. Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty, pp. 4453, on our methodological approach
to episcopal letters. Here we give an abridged version of that chapter, adapted specifically to
letters on the theme of crisis management.
22 A. Gillett, Communication in Late Antiquity: Use and Reuse, in ed. S.F. Johnson,
The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford Handbooks in Classics and Ancient History
(Oxford, 2012), pp. 815846. M. Mullett, Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Bishop, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 2 (Aldershot, Brookfield, VT,
1997), p. 11 n. 3, notes that if fourth- and fifth-century Greek letters were excluded from the
tally of Byzantine letters the total number would drop sharply. On late-antique epistolography in general see J. Sykutris, Epistolographie, in eds. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, RE, Supplementband 5 (Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 186220; G. Constable, Letters and Letter-Collections, Typologie des Sources du Moyen ge Occidental, fasc. 17 (Turnhout, 1976); A.J. Malherbe, Ancient
Epistolary Theorists, Society of Biblical Literature, Sources for Biblical Study no. 19 (Atlanta,
GA, 1988); P. Hatlie, Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography, Byzantine and Modern Greek
Studies 20 (1996), pp. 213248; M. Zelzer, Die Briefliteratur. Kommunikation durch Briefe:
Ein Gesprch mit Abwesenden, in eds. L.J. Engels, H. Hofmann, Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft 4, Sptantike mit einem Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur (Wiesbaden,
1997), pp. 321353; C. Poster, L.C. Mitchell, Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the Present, Historical and Bibliographic Studies, Studies in Rhetoric/Communication
(Columbia, SC, 2007).
23 J. Ebbeler, Tradition, Innovation, and Epistolary mores, in ed. P. Rousseau, A Com-
15
This epistolary activity is all the more surprising given that in the Classical
period only eminent and politically active people like Cicero, Seneca and
Pliny the younger could afford a private postal service.24 Yet there is no
general book on the subject of letter-writing in this period, although a great
deal of attention has recently been paid to travel and information-transfer
in Late Antiquity,25 and to the role of the bishop in this period, not however
as a letter-writer.26 For the carriage of literary letters we still rely largely on
the 1925 work of Denys Gorce.27
The form and function of the epistolographical genre in Late Antiquity
presents its own problematic, with its many hybrid forms that do not fit
the strict Classical definition of a letter. We then turn to the public/private
nature of letters, i.e. the question of their audiences. We shall address the
question of how far we can trust the relatively small number of letters
which have survived to us for an accurate picture of crisis management in
late-antique society. The rationale behind letter compilations, when more
than accidental, also impinges on their usefulness as a historical source for
episcopal crisis management.
panion to Late Antiquity. Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Chichester, 2009),
pp. 270284 at p. 271.
24 See S. Mratschek, Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale
Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Hypomnemata 134 (Gttingen, 2002), p. 286.
25 See e.g. L. Casson, Travel in the Ancient World, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, 1994); S. Mratschek,
Einblicke in einen Postsack. Zur Struktur und Edition der Natalicia des Paulinus von
Nola, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 114 (1996), pp. 165172; L. Di Paola, Viaggi,
trasporti e istituzioni: studi sul cursus publicus, Pelorias 5 (Messina, 1999); A. Kolb, Transport
und Nachrichtentransfer im Rmischen Reich, Klio. Beitrge zur Alten Geschichte, Beihefte,
NF 2 (Berlin, 2000); L. Ellis, F.L. Kidner, eds., Travel, Communication and Geography in Late
Antiquity. Sacred and Profane (Aldershot, Burlington, VT, 2004); B. Leyerle, Mobility and the
Traces of Empire, in ed. Rousseau, A Companion to Late Antiquity, pp. 110123; C. Sotinel,
How Were Bishops Informed? Information Transmission across the Adriatic Sea in Late
Antiquity, in eds. Ellis, Kidner, Travel, Communication and Geography, pp. 6371; eadem,
Information and Political Power, in ed. Rousseau, A Companion to Late Antiquity, pp. 125
138, at pp. 125126.
26 See, for example, R. Lizzi, Il potere episcopale nellOriente romano. Rappresentazione
ideologica e realt politica (IVV sec. d.C.), Filologia e critica 53 (Rome, 1987); . Rebillard,
C. Sotinel, eds., L vque dans la cit du IVe au Ve sicle: image et authorit, Actes de la table
ronde organise par lIstituto Patristico Augustinianum et lcole franaise de Rome, 12
dcembre 1995 (Rome, 1998); A. Sterk, Renouncing the World yet Leading the Church: The
Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, 2004); C. Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity:
The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Transformation of the Classical
Heritage 37 (Berkeley, 2005); R. Lizzi Testa, The Late Antique Bishop: Image and Reality, in
ed. Rousseau, A Companion to Late Antiquity, pp. 525538.
27 Les voyages, l hospitalit et le port des lettres dans le monde chrtien des IV e et V e sicles
(Wpion-sur-Meuse, Paris, 1925), esp. pp. 191247.
16
chapter two
The Nature and Function of Letters
In Classical and Christian antiquity there are almost as many definitions of

a letter as there are letter-writers, but the following statements more or less
sum up what was presupposed in a letter: it is one half of a dialogue or takes
the place of a dialogue; it is a communication with somebody absent as if
he or she were present; it is speech written down; it reflects the personality
of the letter-writer.
Under this broad umbrella are various types of letters. The two types
famously described by Cicero are the private and the public letter, possibly
an over-simplification of divisions in the genre. Other epistolary theorists
divide letters into as many as 21 types (ps-Demetrius) or 41 types (ps. Libanius).28 This indicates that there was a great flexibility in the deployment
of the letter-writing genre and that it could be used at will for purposes
of communication, for dissemination of ideas, for polemical ends and for
instruction. As a rule of thumb in classifying episcopal letters in this book
we have used thirteen categories:
1. Polemicalletters refuting paganism or other religions, especially in
this period Judaism.
2. Dogmaticletters dealing with matters of Christian doctrine.
3. Pastoraladvice on matters of spiritual guidance addressed to nonclergy.
4. Consolationadvice on managing grief, usually occasioned by bereavement or exile.
5. Friendshipletters expressing or strengthen ties with close friends,
patrons or clients.
6. Disciplinaryletters enforcing canonical rulings on clergy or monastics.
7. Administrativeletters pertaining to the institutional running of the
church, including clerical elections, property management and related
financial issues.
28 The classic textbook on ancient epistolary theory remains Malherbe, Ancient Epistolary
Theorists. See F. Maassen, Geschichte der Quellen und der Literatur des canonischen Rechts im
Abendlande bis zum Ausgange des Mittlealters, vol. 1 (Graz, 1870); more recently D. Moreau,
Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas. L origine de lintroduction des lettres pontificales
dans le droit canonique, in eds. J. Desmulliez, C. Hot-van Cauwenberghe, J.-C. Jolivet,
L tudes des correspondances dans le monde romain de lAntiquit classique lAntiquit
tardive: permanences et mutations, Actes du XXXe Colloque international de Lille, 2022
novembre 2008 (Villeneuve-d Ascq, 2010), pp. 487506.
17
8. Recommendationcommending a person or family to an existing

friend or acquaintance.
9. Adviceanswers to questions from bishops, emperors or other persons of influence on various matters, whether doctrinal, administrative or disciplinary.
10. Admonitioninstruction on a disciplinary or doctrinal matter, using
threats of spiritual punishment for non-compliance.
11. Hortationsimilar to an admonition, with an emphasis on spiritual
rewards for compliance.
12. Decreeletter to another bishop or bishops in answer to specific
disciplinary questions; this sort of letter was later interpreted as having
universal application.
13. Judgementpronouncement of deposition from clerical office and/or
excommunication.
Terminology
The bishops themselves used different terms for letter varieties, and some of
these documents do not read like letters at all. For example, there is a libellus,
which could be a document, communication or report, a relatio (narration
or recital of events), a suggestio (points for consideration) and commonitoria
(reminders, instructions). We return to these hybrid forms below. From the
bishops of Rome in particular we have a wide range of words to designate
certain letter-types of a canonical status, for example constitutum, epistula
decretalis, or epistula encyclica.29 Synodical letters (epistulae synodicae) were
those disseminated by an incoming bishop to demonstrate where he stood
on matters of faith; synodal letters (epistulae synodales), on the other hand,
communicated the decisions of synods. Particularly in the East we find festal letters (epistulae festales), which fall into two categories: the magisterial
Paschal letters of the patriarchs of Alexandria, which announced authoritatively and well in advance the dates of the following Lenten Fast, Easter
and Pentecost, and the short letters, more like greeting cards, that were
exchanged on important feast days between bishops, of which there are
many examples from Firmus of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Severus
of Antioch, and in the West from Avitus of Vienne. Unique as a letter-form
are the indiculi or lists of instructions given, together with another letter,
by the bishop of Rome to his envoys on their missions to Constantinople:
29
See Moreau, Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas, pp. 489492.
18
chapter two
in minute detail the indiculi set out rules for the envoys behaviour on
their arrival, even scripting for their guidance some possible conversational
scenarios with the emperor and patriarch in the East. While this overview
is not an exhaustive examination of the terminology of the letters we are
dealing with,30 it will go some way towards illustrating the variety of letterforms to be found in fifth- and sixth-century Latin and Greek episcopal
correspondence.
The Question of Audience: Public or Private?
Letter-writing in antiquity, and even later, needs to be viewed as a kind of
public intimacy,31 and letters themselves as intimate and confidential and
intended for publication.32 This view of the letter influenced those who
chose it as the medium of the message, when they preferred the epistolographical genre to that of the homily, for example. Why did they make this
choice? Ciceros remark that few can carry a letter without lightening the
weight by reading it,33 or Libanius assertion that any letter you get is immediately known to people here,34 holds true for Late Antiquity too. Thus while
we have both public and private letters from many fifth- and sixth-century
bishops, there is sometimes little to choose between the two points.35
30 Jerome, for instance, who was not a bishop, often used the term commentariola of his
letters when they were shorter than a libellus or volumen. See the discussion in B. Conring,
Hieronymus als Briefschreiber. Ein Beitrag zur sptantiken Epistolographie, Studien und Texte
zu Antike und Christentum/Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 8 (Tbingen,
2001), pp. 100105.
31 A phrase applied to the Byzantine letter by M. Mullett, Theophylact of Ochrid, p. 17.
32 A. Morey, C.N.L. Brooke, Gilbert Foliot and His Letters, Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Life and Thought, ns 11 (Cambridge, New York, 1965), p. 13, cited in Mullett, Theophylact of
Ochrid, p. 16.
33 Cicero, Ep. 13.1 to Atticus: quotus enim quisque est qui epistulam paulo graviorem ferre
possit nisi eam per lectione relevarit?; ed., trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero. Letters to
Atticus, Loeb Classical Library 7 (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1999; repr. 2006), vol. 1, p. 60.
34 Libanius, Ep. 16; ed., trans. A.F. Norman, Libanius. Autobiography and Selected Letters,
Loeb Classical Library 478 (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1992), vol. 1, p. 401.
35 As pointed out by . Paoli-Lafaye, Messagers et messages. La diffusion des nouvelles
de l Afrique d Augustin vers les rgions d au-del des mers, in eds. J. Andreau, C. Virlouvet,
L Information et la mer dans le monde antique (Rome, 2002), pp. 233259, at p. 235. On the
official, public, missions of papal envoys see A. Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in
the Late Antique West, 411533 (Cambridge, 2003), esp. 227258. For a taxonomy of fifth- and
sixth-century sources see P. Allen, How to Study Episcopal Letter-Writing in Late Antiquity:
An Overview of Published Work on the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, in eds. V. Baranov, B. Louri,
K. Demura, Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, d hagiographie critique et dhistoire ecclsiastique
6 (Piscataway, 2010), pp. 130142.
19
Let us examine first the public nature of the letter in Late Antiquity,
exemplified by two extant letters, one by Bishop Gregory of Nyssa and the
other by the pagan orator Libanius. Gregory speaks of friends who regard
a circulated letter addressed to an individual as a particular treasure: some
had it read numerous times and memorised it; others had put it on their
writing-tablets.36 A letter of Libanius to Basil, registered as Letter 338 in
Basils letter-collection, describes the arrival of Basils letter to the pagan
orator. Several official men were sitting with Libanius when the bearers
delivered Basils letter to him. Libanius read the piece through in silence,
then exclaimed aloud, as a consequence of which the others wanted to
have it read to them. The reader read it aloud and went out, probably to
show it to others too, and only reluctantly gave it back.37 Here apparently
the reader is not one of the bearers, and the letter is regarded as public
property.
In one letter Synesius of Cyrene, writing to his friend Pylamenes, explains
that he has hired a theatre to have a public reading of Pylamenes letter,38
and refers to letters being read out in the Panhellenion in Constantinople.39
In another letter, written to his brother in Alexandria, Synesius assumes
that his work will be read aloud before the patriarch of that city and his
staff.40 Small wonder, then, that Synesius says he cannot believe it is a
good thing to confide secrets to paper, because the function of a letter
36 Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. 14.34 to Libanius; ed. P. Maraval, Grgoire de Nysse. Lettres,
introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et index, SC 363 (Paris, 1990), pp. 202, 15204, 25.
Trans. A.M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, Supplements to VC 83 (Leiden, 2007) p. 157:

, , ,
. ,
,
,
, . For
it so happened that on that day, as I was visiting the metropolis of the Cappadocians, I met
one of my acquaintances who handed me this gift, your letter, as a feast-day present. I was
overjoyed at this good fortune, threw open my gain to all who were present. All shared in
it, each eagerly acquiring the whole of it, while I was none the worse off. For the letter, as it
passed through the hands of all became the private wealth of each, some by memorizing the
words through repeated reading, others by taking a copy of them upon tablets. So it returned
to my hands .
37 Ed. Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Correspondance (Paris, 2003), vol. 3, pp. 205206.
38 Ep. 101; ed. Garzya, trans. Roques, Synsios de Cyrne. Correspondance (Paris, 2000),
vol. 2, p. 224.
39 Ep. 101; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 227.
20
chapter two
is not to keep quiet but to speak to the first comer.41 To another one of
his friends, Diogenes, Synesius writes that the addressee has the gift of not
only communicating daily affairs by letter but also of having his letters
known and admired.42 The wide dissemination of letters could also act as
a guarantee of parrhesia, as Severus of Antioch points out: How can it
not be right that we should also proclaim openly in words the things that
we in actual practice think and do?43 The near hopelessness of keeping
correspondence private is mentioned by Augustine as he laments that his
writings cannot be kept from those whose minds are not too trained or
sharp, who therefore could misconstrue them.44 If we are to believe Libanius,
there were even those (like himself) who took advantage of the public
nature of letters:
Well, even if you do not write to me, I feast on your letters, for whenever I find
out that anyone has received one, I present myself forthwith, and either by
persuasion or by overpowering his reluctance I get to read it.45
It follows that lack of confidentiality was a constant concern for the episcopal letter-writers and other correspondents, and that consequently it was
standard for verbal reports to be delivered by the bearers.46 Witness the lateantique pagan writer Symmachus (370384ce), whose letters contained no
real information; that was to be conveyed by the bearer. The letters of Leo I
of Rome are similar in their confidentiality: whenever there was a tricky
ecclesiastical issue at stake, the essence of it was left to the trusted bearer
to explain.47
41 Ep. 137 to Herculian; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 277. Cf. C. Tornau, Zwischen Rhetorik
und Philosophie: Augustins Argumentationstechnik in De Civitate Dei und ihr bildungsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund (Berlin, 2006), p. 35, on the absence of copyright or confidentiality in Late Antiquity. On the public reading of letters see too Constable, Letters and LetterCollections, pp. 1112; M.B. Trapp, Greek and Latin Letters. An Anthology, with Translation,
Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics (Cambridge, New York, 2003), p. 17.
43 Ep. 1.55; ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of
Antioch in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, vol. 2 (Oxford, London, 1903; repr. Westmead, Hants, 1969), pp. 166167. Ep. 29 of the emperor Julian contains similar sentiments.
44 Ep. 162.1; NBA 22, p. 670; trans. Teske, vol. 3, p. 56.
45 Ep. 86; ed., trans. Norman, vol. 2, p. 109.
46 See further P. Allen, Christian Correspondences: The Secrets of Letter-writers and
Letter-bearers, in eds. H. Baltussen, P. Davis, Parrhesia, Censorship, and the Art of Veiled
Speech (Leiden, forthcoming).
47 See e.g. Ep. 67 (ed. C. Silva-Tarouca, TDST 15 (Rome, 1934), p. 89); Ep. 80 (ed. ACO 2/4,
pp. 3840 and ed. Silva-Tarouca, TDST 15, nr. 24); Ep. 85 (ed. ACO 2/4, pp. 4445 and ed. SilvaTarouca, TDST 15, nr. 28).
21
While the majority of episcopal letters were addressed to male readers,

there are a number of surviving letters to women. One of the most common
types of letter to find a female addressee was the consolation letter (consolatio), as for instance Fulgentius of Ruspes Letter 2 to the widow Galla on
the death of her husband.48 Simple friendship letters, not related to crises,
abound, such as Ruricius of Limoges letter to Ceraunia.49 Bishops frequently
exchanged letters with women with whom they seemed to be in patronclient relationships, as for example three letters to Pope Hormisdas, one
from Anastasia (Ep. 70), and two from Juliana Anicia (Epp. 71 and 119). Our
corpus includes several petitions to female members of the imperial family,
such as Gelasius of Romes letters to Hereleuva, mother of the Gothic king
Theodoric,50 and Leo Is petitions to Theodosius IIs sister Pulcheria (Epp.
30, 31, 45, 60, 70, 79, 84, 95, 105, 112 and 116), Theodosius widow Eudocia (Ep.
123), her daughter Licinia Eudoxia (Ep. 64), and Valentinian IIIs mother and
regent, Galla Placidia (Ep. 63).
Hybrid Forms
One must not overlook those hybrid texts which are letters in the technical
sense but in terms of their nature, content and function have in fact crossed
over into the realm of homilies or treatises. Although according to the
rules of ancient epistolography the letter was theoretically limited in length
and was also supposedly confined to one subject, in practice the genre
was flexible,51 and the cross-over from letter to treatise, for example, was
a relatively easy one. Among the letter-collections surviving to us from
the fifth and sixth centuries we have huge variations in length, with some
communications from Innocent I, Synesius of Cyrene and Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, for example, containing only a few lines, whereas others, among
which are Leo Is Tome (Ep. 28) and Second Tome (Ep. 165, containing about
48 Fulgentius, Ep. 2; ed. J. Fraipont, Sancti Fulgentii espiscopi Ruspensis Opera, CCSL 91
(Turnhout, 1968), vol. 1, pp. 197211.
49 Ruricius, Ep. 2.15 to Ceraunia; ed. B. Krusch, Fausti aliorumque epistulae ad Ruricium
aliosque, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887), pp. 323326 (c. 495/500).
50 Gelasius, Frg. 36; ed. Thiel, p. 502; Ep. 46, ed. P. Ewald, Die Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere Deutsche Geschichtskunde zur
Befrderung einer Gesammtausgabe der Quellenschriften Deutscher Geschichte des Mittelalters 5 (1880), pp. 503596, at pp. 521522.
51 Basil of Caesarea, for example, wrote to his correspondent Philagrius:
,
. send plenty of letters, as long as you can [make them], for shortness is not
a virtue in a letter, any more than it is in a man. Ep. 323; ed. Courtonne, vol. 3, p. 195, 1214.
22
chapter two
twelve pages of text and thirteen pages of testimonia), are the length of a
tractate. Here we take as examples two long letters of Augustine, Letters
140 and 157: were these pieces originally letters which subsequently and
innocently exceeded the epistolary norm, or were they intentionally written
in letter-form with some ulterior motive?52
Augustines Letter 140 was written in 411 or 412 in reply to Honoratus, a
Carthaginian catechumen, who had quizzed Augustine on five questions
about scriptural passages. In his reply Augustine adds a sixth question of
his own and his answer to it, making the letter well over 40 pages. In his
Retractationes the bishop referred to this work as a liber, explaining that he
had not answered Honoratus questions in order but in a way that enabled
him to discuss the grace of the New Testament, for he was still struggling
with the Donatists and had begun his opposition to the Pelagians ideas.53
In other words, Augustine has turned his reply to Honoratus into a tractate
of his own choosing, adding a sixth component in order to tie the other five
together. In 414 or 415 the Silician layman Hilary posed several questions
about Pelagianism to Augustine in a half-page letter.54 Augustines reply was
27 pages long, and perhaps was the work he described in De gestis Pelagii
as a book.55 His focus is theological and exegetical rather than pastoral or
personal, and it is difficult to believe that Hilarywho we may imagine was
surprised by the length of the response he receivedwas not meant to show
it, read it, or have it read to Christians in Sicily who were troubled by Pelagian
doctrine.
On the basis of these two compositions it is easy to understand why
Johannes Divjak branded such lettres-traits as fausses lettres, while
affirming that the criterion for what is and is not a letter for Augustine
appears in other cases to be fulfilled by the formula quis ad quem scribat.56
Recently Pierre Descotes has pointed out that we should distrust any
approach that emphasises the theological content of a letter to the extent
that we forget to consider what the meaning of the letter is, namely the
rapport of the letter-writer with the recipient. He singles out the letter to
52 For a more extensive treatment of these two letters see P. Allen in Allen, Neil, Mayer,
Preaching Poverty, pp. 5152.
53 Retractationes 2.36; NBA 2, p. 206.
54 Ep. 156; NBA 22, p. 580.
55 Ep. 157; NBA 22, pp. 582637. Cf. De gestis Pelagii 11.23; NBA 17/2, p. 58.
56 J. Divjak, Zur Struktur Augustinischer Briefcorpora, in Les lettres de saint Augustin
dcouvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications prsentes au colloque des 20 et 21 septembre
1982, tudes augustiniennes (Paris, 1983), pp. 1327 at p. 21.
studying late-antique crisis management through letters 23

Honoratus as an instance where Augustine has made a great effort to take
account of the personality of his epistolary interlocutor.57
Another example of formal letters which were much closer in tone and
function to homilies is provided by the documents sent out annually by the
patriarchs of Alexandria announcing the dates of Lent, Easter and Pentecost.
These paschal or festal letters were disseminated throughout Egypt to
churches and monasteries, and indeed to the church at large, and were
read out presumably in a liturgical context. The most significant surviving
corpora of these letters are those of Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril of
Alexandria.58
Libelli must also be included as anomalous letters. These were brief tracts
that outlined a doctrinal position, delivered by legates from one bishop to
another, or to a council, or emperor. An example is the libellus of Felix III,
bishop of Rome, sent to the emperor Zeno at the outbreak of the Acacian
schism.59
The commonitorium is a similar document, produced by one bishop/
patriarch for a council or another bishop/patriarch. Examples are Cyril of
Alexandrias Commonitorium addressed to Celestine of Rome which he gave
to the deacon Posidonius when he sent him to Rome to deal with the trouble
of Nestorius;60 and the Commonitorium of Celestine I to bishops and priests
going to the synod of Ephesus.61
Compilation of Letter-Collections
The rationale behind most compilations of letters from Classical and Christian antiquity is a mystery.62 Even from an assiduous filing system, that of
Augustine of Hippo, for example, we have only about 300 letters surviving,
doubtless only a fraction of what he actually wrote. This makes pronouncements in his letters on any given topicincluding criseshazardous. Here
57 P. Descotes, Les lettres-traits d Augustin et la controverse Plagienne, in eds. Desmulliez, Hot-van Cauwenberghe, Jolivet, L tude des correspondances, pp. 429447, esp. pp. 438
445.
58 On the genre in general see P. vieux (intro.), Cyrille dAlexandrie. Lettres Festales IVI,
SC 372, pp. 73118.
59 Felix III of Rome, Ep. 4; ed. Thiel, pp. 240241.
60 Cyrils Commonitorium = Celestine of Rome, Ep. 9; it was written in Greek with a Latin
translation.
61 Celestine of Rome, Ep. 17; PL 50, 503AB.
62 On the continuities between rationales of Latin letter-collections from Classical and
Christian Rome, see R. Gibson, On the Nature of Ancient Letter Collections, Journal of
Roman Studies 102 (2012), pp. 5678.
24
chapter two
we wish to examine the epistolary output of several late-antique bishops,

both individually and collectively, in an attempt to establish some guidelines for assessing compilation and survival techniques.
Concilia acta were an important vehicle for the transmission of episcopal letters. Many letters of, for example, Cyril of Alexandria, John of Antioch
and Theodoret of Cyrrhus are preserved from the Council of Ephesus. On the
other hand, from Bishop Epiphanius of Pavia (438496), who played a crucial role as envoy in negotiations with Germanic kings,63 we have no letters
transmitted in any way at all, although it is unthinkable that this influential bishop wrote none. Different again is the case of Epiphanius successor,
Ennodius, in his turn a diplomat with several missions to Constantinople
and elsewhere to his credit, all of whose letters date from before his episcopate.64 Again it is unthinkable that he wrote no letters as bishop. Finally we
adduce a remarkable sixth-century dossier of bishops letters, intentionally
compiled and surviving in Syriac, that was intended to justify the actions of
the controversial patriarch of Antioch, Paul the Black, the catalyst for the
schism between Antioch and Alexandria in 575 ce that lasted until well into
the seventh century.65
Another caveat when dealing with letter-collections is provided by the
surviving letters of Severus, patriarch of Antioch from 512 to 518.66 For the
most part these have come down to us in early Syriac translations in several
groups. Originally they were divided into three classes: those written before
his patriarchate, those during it, and those after his expulsion from his see
in 518 until his death in Egypt in 538. The three classes contained four, ten
and nine books respectively. In addition, there were letters outside these 23
books.67 The total number of letters must have exceeded 3759, of which fewer
than 300 survive, thus less than one-fifteenth of the total. The sixth book of
the 23, containing 123 letters translated by the priest Athanasius of Nisibis
in 669, deals solely with ecclesiastical and canonical matters and is not in
chronological order. Here the translators interest in ecclesiastical discipline
63 Vita Epiphanii; ed. F. Vogel, MGH AA 7, pp. 84109; trans. R.J. Deferrari, Early Christian
Biographies, FOTC 15 (Washington, DC, 1952), pp. 301351.
64 See S. Gioanni, Ennode de Pavie. Lettres, Collection des Universits de France 383 (Paris,
2006), vol. 1, pp. VIIXCV, on the career of Ennodius.
65 DM; cf. A. Van Roey, P. Allen, eds., trans. comm., Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century,
Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 56 (Leuven, 1994), pp. 265303.
66 See further P. Allen, Severus of Antioch and Pastoral Care, in eds. P. Allen, W. Mayer,
L. Cross, Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, vol. 2 (Brisbane, 1999), pp. 387400, at
pp. 388391.
67 See Brooks, ed., trans., Select Letters, esp. vol. 2, pp. ixx on the calculations.

determined what he passed on. Similar concerns goverend the collection of
Roman episcopal letters. For example, from Pope Hormisdas (514523), we
have a collection of 93 letters, as well as 31 addressed to him and 26 which
are neither written by nor addressed to him.68 This corpus owes its contents
and survival to the archiving techniques of the papal scrinium which here
are well in evidence before the episcopate of Gregory the Great.
Another important consideration is the bias of stylized letter-collections,
like those of Sidonius Apollinaris. The intentional collections of Seneca and
Pliny the Great illustrate such selectivity in action.69 None of the Greek
and Latin letters examined in this volume gives us a full and accurate picture of episcopal crisis management in Late Antiquity. The rationaleif
that is the wordbehind the compilation of the letter-collections is largely
to blame for this, rather than the theoretical constraints of the epistolary genre, which, as we have seen, could be ignored at will. It is noteworthy that Augustine and Salvian, among others, chose the letter-form
for moral disquisitions which on the one hand resemble a homily, and on
the other a tractate, confirming the fact that, however much the epistolographical genre was manipulated, the letter remained an act of public intimacy.
Notwithstanding the regrettably high mortality rate of letters generally
in early Christianity, it is estimated that about one-third of surviving episcopal letters deal with one or more of the categories of crisis identified
above. Some bishops, for example Paulinus of Nola and Ephrem of Antioch,
have nothing to say on the subject in spite of the crises unfolding around
them, an interesting fact in itself. There are also several documented crises
where there was no evidence of episcopal management in the bishops letters themselves. By comparing episcopal letters with homilies, as well as
with histories, chronicles, archeological findings and saints Lives, we can
assess whether letters are slanted towards particular kinds of representation of crises. In this respect we see substantial regional variation between
three groups: Roman bishops, other western bishops, and Greek-speaking
bishops.
68
Ed. Thiel, pp. 741990.

On Sidonius collection and the involvement of Constantius of Lyons in its redaction,
see the profile in the Appendix to this volume; on Pliny the Younger, see R. Gibson, R. Morello,
Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger (Cambridge, 2012).
69
26
chapter two
Epistolary Sources on Crisis
The Greek Corpus
The Greek collections from this period consist of over 1000 letters from
Greek-speaking bishops. Many of these have survived in conciliar acta, in
Latin, Syriac and other translations, and in fragmentary form. From this
incomplete evidence, it appears that the overriding concerns of Greekspeaking bishops were the reception of the Council of Ephesus and the
crisis precipitated by the Council of Chalcedon and its aftermath, as is
demonstrated by the number of letters of Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret
and John of Antioch transmitted in conciliar collections and therefore predominantly reflecting doctrinal matters.70 Letters in smaller quantities of
lesser-known bishops like Andreas of Samosata, Alexander of Hierapolis,
Helladius of Tarsus, Maximianus of Anazarbus and Meletius of Mopsuestia
likewise owe their preservation to acta.71 To be expected was that the letters of the condemned Nestorius would survive only in excerpts,72 and that
those of anti-Chalcedonians like Timothy Aelurus (d. 477) and the outlawed
Severus of Antioch survive almost totally in Syriac translations.73 From the
dynamic Ephrem, successively comes Orientis and patriarch of Antioch for
eighteen years (526544), we have not a single surviving letter documenting the tumultuous times in which he lived, which witnessed earthquakes,
Persian incursions and the plague.74 Similarly from the prominent Chalcedonian bishops Anastasius I of Antioch (558570, 593599), Gregory of Antioch (570593) and Eulogius of Alexandria (580608) little or nothing survives. The 49 letters of Firmus, bishop of Caesarea (d. before 439), that have
come down to us display more interest in friendship and gentlemanly pursuits than engagement with crisis. Only thirteen letters, almost exclusively
devoted to doctrinal issues, provide evidence of the enormous influence
exercised by the anti-Chalcedonian leader, Theodosius (535566), during a
critical period of the anti-Chalcedonian church, and the epistolary remains
of other prominent anti-Chalcedonians like Damian of Alexandria (578
604) and Peter of Callinicum/Antioch (581591) are paltry. Were it not for
the impressive dossier (the DM) compiled in c. 581 by a supporter of Paul the
70
71
72
73
74
See Appendix under Greek authors.

See Appendix under Greek authors.
See Appendix under Greek author profiles, and Chapter 3, Case-study 1.
See Appendix under Greek author profiles, and Chapter 3, Case-study 5.
On which see Chapter 4.

Black, the controversial patriarch of Antioch (564581),75 we would be even
less informed about the crisis management strategies of anti-Chalcedonian
bishops in the East from the 550s onwards.
The four significant Greek-language corpora of letters we have dealt with
so far in this volume are those of Cyril, Synesius, Theodoret, and Severus (the
latter surviving in Syriac translations). Cyrils management style in dealing
with crises caused by crop failure and gang violence in the Egyptian countryside is revealed in two of his widely-disseminated Festal Letters76 and,
like that of his uncle Theophilus, is consistent with the monolithic power
wielded by the patriarchs of Alexandria in dealing also with Jews, Novatians, anthropomorphites and phantasiasts. Synesius, on the other hand,
exhibits a hands-on approach in managing crisis, defending his city physically against barbarian incursions and personally taking charge of a situation involving a rapacious and corrupt governor of his province.77 But then
Synesius was as much curialis as he was bishop. For his part, Theodoret,
affected by ecclesiastical crisis himself during his episcopate and relegated
to his see, intervenes energetically with local and imperial officials on behalf
of tenant farmers who are unable to pay their taxes because of repeated
crop failure.78 He also addresses the critical situations of Christians who have
fled Vandal North Africa by writing numerous letters of recommendation
on their behalf to other bishops, secular officials and a sophist.79 The crises
confronted by Severus are different again, at least as far as the bias of the
compilers and translators of his letter-collections allows us to see: while he
is still patriarch he is preoccupied with the Chalcedonian crisis to the extent
that he establishes rules for accepting defectors from the anti-Chalcedonian
cause;80 during his long exile in Egypt his concern is to manage in absentia
the large diaspora of his co-religionaries, banished by the imperial government to far-flung places.81
75
See Chapter 5 and Case-study 2.

See Chapter 4, Case-study 1.
77 See Chapter 6, Case-study 1.
79 Epp. 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, 70.
80 This is the case with many letters published by Brooks in Select Letters, especially
Book 5.
81 See e.g. Epp. 35 and 61; ed. Brooks, PO 12/2, pp. 279290 and 340342.
76
28
chapter two
The Latin Corpus
Letters from Rome

The Roman corpus consists of 630 surviving letters or fragments of letters
composed by 20 bishops of Rome. The vast majority of these survive in
medieval collections of conciliar canons and papal decretals. These stem
mostly from Italy, Gaul and Spain. Conservation of papal letters in such
collections began with Siricius (384399), followed by Innocent I. From the
pontificate of Innocent to that of Gregory the Great, all but four bishops of
Rome have passed down at least one letter. The most substantial collections
belong to Innocent, Leo, Gelasius and Hormisdas. No letters survive from
the brief pontificates of John I (523526) or Silverius (elected in June 536 and
abdicated in November of that year).82 Boniface II (530532) produced only
one surviving letter. Naturally none survives from Bonifaces rival, Dioscorus,
who held favour among the majority and lasted only 28 days until his
death on 14 October 530. No letters survive from either John III (561574)
or Benedict I (575579).
Due to the nature of the canon law collections and the rationale behind
their compilation, that of providing authorities on questions of clerical discipline and doctrinal error, the content of the letters that survive is remarkably homogeneous. This, together with a preference for letters addressed to
important figures such as members of the imperial family, and other wellknown figures like Augustine and Jerome, has meant that such collections
are good sources on particular crisesespecially religious controversy and
associated violencebut poor on others. A rare example of a letter that
survives outside the mediaeval collections is a fragment of the Arabic translation of Innocents letter to Severian of Gabala, on doctrinal themes relating
to christology and mariology.83 There must have been numerous personal
letters that were excluded from these dedicated letter-collections by the narrow purview of the compilers. It is most regrettable that none of these have
survived, as they would have helped to round out our picture of Roman episcopal activities beyond their canonical pursuits.
On the basis of the epistolary evidence we conjecture that a major shift
occurred at the end of the fifth century in the production, function and
preservation of papal letters. The picture of preservation practices is warped
82 Those letters attributed to John I in PL 63, 529534 have been proven to be forgeries: cf.
J. Pitra, Analecta nouissima (Paris, 1885), vol. 1, p. 466 (CPL 1685).
83 (Jaff 319); ed. A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum (Rome, 1840), vol. 3, pp. 702704 (CPL 1643);
a Latin retroversion by Mai.

by the fact that virtually none of the archives of the fifth and sixth centuries survives, even though there is repeated reference to them throughout
extant papal correspondence. So the contents have to be reconstructed from
copies kept by recipients, sometimes fragmentary, and from special collections which were made from the sixth century onwards. Fortunately this
means that we have four substantial corpora before the Registrum of Gregory the Great: Leo I, Gelasius, Hormisdas and Pelagius I. The whole Roman
epistolary corpus up to 492 ce contains only one letter of personal recommendation, that of Felix III for a vir clarissimus.84 The change to a different
epistolary model, or at least to preservation practices, starts with Gelasius
and is also evident in the collected letters of Hormisdas and Pelagius I, all
of whom regularly supply letters of recommendation for individuals (Gelasius, Ep. 13 to Rusticus of Lyon; Hormisdas, Epp. 36 and 37 on behalf of John
of Nicopolis; Pelagius I, Ep. 40 on behalf of Andreas and Joanna).85 Due to
the medieval redactors desire for papal letter-collections that would provide precedents for canon law, it is possible that such personal letters of
other popes were not deemed worthy of note and thus not preserved. It is
probably no coincidence that from the end of the fifth century that we also
find an increasing aristocratization of the papacy from Felix III onwards. The
shift in redaction practices was completed by the start of Gregory Is pontificate in 590. Gregorys many letters show him acting as an elite patron
and petitioning for individuals in need. This evidence has made it seem
like a sudden change in papal objectives had occurred, and has led many
to call Gregory the first medieval pope, as if late antiquity had ended suddenly with his predecessor Pelagius II. Rather, when we consider the letters
of Gelasius and Pelagius, a pattern of continuity emerges of popes increasingly engaged in activities relating to crises other than religious controversy.
In relation to the Roman popes we suggest two reasons: the increasing need
for bishops to step in as other structures of dependence broke down, and the
paterfamilias/ber-patron mentality that had always obtained to the episcopate of Rome. This was a different kind of behaviour induced by crisis. We
84 Felix III, Ep. 5 to Emperor Zeno; ed. Thiel, p. 242, recommending Terrentianus, whom
he employed as a letter-bearer to Zeno during the Acacian schism (483ce).
85 Gass and Batlle, p. 113, n. 1, suggest that these two might be slaves, since no title is
afforded them, and their complain concerns an unjust investigation concerning their status
(quia de statu suo sibi moueri iniustam queruntur quaestionem). The bishops Amabilis
and Leontius are asked to offer them the churchs protection. It seems more likely that
these are freeborn former captives or refugees who have no documentation to prove their
citizenship.
30
chapter two
cannot ascribe such behaviour to an ideological shift in relation to the poor.

Evidence for this is to be found in their disproportionate concern with the
formerly wealthy.86
Displaced persons, the subject of our next chapter, do not seem to have
attracted much papal interest, unless those persons were runaway slaves,
originarii or coloni. The bishops of Rome remained aloof, to judge by their
letters, even if they did spend precious resources on ransoming captives as
their position required (as we know for example of Leo I and Symmachus,
even though neither mentioned the fact in their many letters). Again, we
return to the problem of evidence. When their letters are preserved in
canon law collections, it is natural that most are concerned with issues of
clerical discipline and canon law: e.g. the baptism of returned captives in
Leos letters to Neo of Ravenna (Ep. 166) and Rusticus of Narbonne (Ep. 167,
questions 1619).
As is the case in the Greek corpora, the absence of comment in relation to
natural disasters is most striking. The Romans seem to have lagged behind
the rest of the West in ascribing spiritual significance to floods, hail storms,
droughts, plagues and other natural phenomena that put human beings in
crisis.
Overall we find a distinct reticence about the dire straits in which the
papacy found itself in the context of the barbarian invasions of 408410, a
passing reference in Innocents Letter 16 being the only exception. To judge
from the content of his sixteen surviving letters Celestine was apparently
more concerned with Pelagianism in Italy than with the Arian Vandal invasions of North Africa from 429, which led to the persecution of catholic
Christians there.87 Local concerns always came first. However, epistolary
allusions to the direct threat to Rome from Huns and Vandals in the 430s
until the 450s are infrequent, indicating that some local concerns were not
suitable material for epistolary communication. They are especially reticent
86 Similarly, many of Gregory Is beneficiaries of bequests of money, food, grain and oil
were impoverished elites, or their widows and children. He also petitioned on behalf of
Sardinian landowners who were unable to bear the increasing burden of imperial taxes. See
Neil, The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great, forthcoming.
87 A caution against this interpretation, however, is Nestorius remark in his second letter
of three to the pope (Nestorius, Ep. II ad Celestinum [CPG 5667] = Celestine, Ep. 7), that we
have often written to you about Julian, Orontius and others of the Pelagian sect who were
usurping episcopal office, when his other letters do not mention this issue; cf. Nestorius, Ep. I
ad Celestinum (CPG 5665) = Celestine, Ep. 6, where Nestorius condemns anyone who calls the
Virgin Theotokos; Nestorius, Ep. III ad Celestinum (CPG 5670) = Celestine, Ep. 15, on the use
of the terms Theotokos, Christotokos by Cyril. Obviously most of the correspondence between
them does not survive.
31
about their own activities in managing the many crises that these attacks
generated, and perhaps most unwilling of all to concede that they had temporarily lost power over Rome itself in 455. The Gothic kings enter without
any special remark in the correspondence of Gelasius. The Gothic wars of
the mid-sixth century made a brief appearance in Pelagius Is correspondence but, in seeking help from both Goths and Byzantines, he was careful
not to ascribe blame to either of the warring parties.88 Pelagius I shows the
culmination of a tendency towards micro-management that characterizes
the Roman bishops of our period. What really upsets all the Roman bishops of this period is heresy, whether Arians in North Africa or to a lesser
extent in Gaul (Gelasius), Manichees (Leo I, Gelasius, Hormisdas), Pelagians
or Priscillianists in Italy, Spain and Gaul (Celestine, Leo I), or Nestorians and
other anti-Chalcedonians in the East, especially during the Acacian schism
(Felix III, Gelasius, Anastasius II, Symmachus, Hormisdas).89 This leads us
to qualify Nobles assertion, in connection with Gelasius correspondence
over the Acacian schism, that, The routine business of papal government,
and the duties of the pope as an Italian metropolitan always took precedence over everything else, even if the narrative sources are crisis oriented
and seem to focus on the great events of late antique history.90 When we
take the tract-length letters of Gelasius into account, and the two lost tracts
on Arianism, heresy was clearly his priority, as it was for all other bishops of
Rome in this troubled period.
Letters from Other Western Bishops
Occupying a middle position between the extensive epistolary remains of
the bishops of Rome and the sporadic transmission of letters from the Greekspeaking parts of the empire in Late Antiquity are the letters of bishops of
North Africa, Spain, Gaul and other parts of Italy. While this group is by
no means a homogenous whole, several important corpora from various
locationsthose of Augustine, Sidonius Apollinaris, Ruricius of Limoges
and Avitus of Vienneprovide us with insights into the crises bishops faced
and attempted to grapple with. Nonetheless, it is disappointing that of the 51
letters of Paulinus of Nola and the 297 in the collection of Ennodius of Pavia,
men intimately involved in the events of their time, very few date from their
episcopates.
88
89
90
Epp. 4 and 9. See Case-study 2 in Chapter 7.

See Case-study 1 on the CEn in Chapter 5.
Noble, Theodoric and the Papacy, p. 398.
32
chapter two
Because of the numbers in which they survive, the letters of Augustine

(c. 300 items) and Sidonius (146) are the most instructive for assessing strategies of episcopal crisis management. In particular, those of Augustine cover
a gamut of concerns, from large to small, but we do not find here to the same
extent the micro-managing evident in letters of the bishops of Rome. The
huge crises for him are firstly the schism between catholics and Donatists,
with which he and his people lived daily. Hence we find him writing to a
group of Donatist leaders appealing for unity (Ep. 43), planning to discuss
the schism privately with the Donatist bishop Honoratus, away from the
crowds (Ep. 49), and inviting Crispinus, the Donatist bishop of Calama, to
address the schism by letter (Ep. 51). Augustine pleads with Donatus, the
proconsul of Africa, to correct Donatists but not put them to death (Ep. 100),
and elsewhere advocates not punishing Donatist clerics and Circumcellions
in accord with their crimes (Epp. 133, 134, 139). Subsequently Augustine confronted the threat which he considered Pelagianism posed to church doctrine and unity (Epp. 178, 179, 191, 194). His concerns regarding Donatists and
Pelagians are attested not only in his letters but also in many of his dogmatic works, and he continued to be much exercised by Arianism (Epp. 185,
238, 239, 241). Other crises were constituted by riots between pagans and
Christians (Epp. 50, 91, 97) and by imminent attacks from Vandals, which
Augustine tried to address in his correspondence to the comes Africae (Ep.
220). A subterranean issue throughout his letters is the clerical abuse of
power, which on occasions bubbled to the surface in a troubling way, as in
the infamous case of Bishop Antoninus of Fussala which was finally referred
to Rome.91 We have already noted the exertions of the bishop of Hippo in the
legal sphere, where he tried to correct social and legal abuses both through
his episcopal court and other less formal avenues. Outstanding in this regard
is his rescue of over one hundred free North African citizens enslaved by
Galatian people-traffickers, in the absence of activity from the civil authorities (Ep. 10*). Augustines reactions on the one hand to the decline of the
social classes due to a lack of officials to protect them from excessive taxes
(Ep. 22*), and on the other to the disturbing development of the indentured
labour of free-born children (Ep. 24*) demonstrate his social engagement in
combating various kinds of breakdowns in his world, but do not provide us
with answers regarding his management of specific crises. Apart from the
letters of Fulgentius of Ruspe, which reveal him writing against Arianism,
91

semi-Pelagianism and aphthartodocetism,92 we have only very few epistolary remains from other North African bishops writing in Latinthose of
Aurelius of Carthage and his successors Capreolus and Quodvultdeus, which
shed little light on strategies for episcopal crisis management, although
these men would have been in the thick of the Vandal incursions.
We turn now to Gallic writers. The self-conscious, intentional lettercollection of Sidonius Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, relates a
number of developments that he regards as crises. The most pressing of
these is the Visigothic presence in Gaul, more particularly its less friendly
aspects like raids and sieges.93 The damage inflicted by the invaders on buildings and property is depicted as extreme (Epp. 3.2, 4.3, 6.10) to the extent that
many edifices are roofless or otherwise in ruin, and the invidious position
occupied by Sidonius people between the Burgundians, supposedly their
protectors, and the Visigoths (Ep. 3.4) escalated to the extent that the bishop
himself had to go into temporary exile. The roads were unsafe for letterbearers, who could be stopped and interrogated at will by the Visigothic
thought-police (Ep. 9.3.2). Sidonius management of these crises appears to
have rested on one remedythe introduction of the Rogation ceremony in
his bishopric, which was intended to atone for and ward off crises of various
kinds (Epp. 5.14, 7.1). But not so far under the surface there were other problems: during the (Arian) barbarian incursions a great number of bishops
died and were not replaced, and consequently the congregations became
depressed at the lack of leadership (Ep. 7.6). There is no other evidence in his
letters for other strategies for addressing this situation, but the letters themselves are evidence for his strategic allianes with other bishops and patrons.
Connected with the Visigothic invasions of his territory is what Sidonius
regards as the crisis in Roman civilisation or the passing of the old order, to
the extent that Latinity is being compromised (Epp. 3.3, 3.8, 4.17), but here
we have to tread with caution because of the bishops view of himself and his
cultivated intimates as the last bastions of Romanitas. This view is mediated
self-consciously through his letter-collection.
Ruricius of Limoges (d. c. 510), a younger contemporary and friend of
Sidonius and Faustus of Riez, and like Sidonius a conscious stylist, makes
no mention in his surviving letters of specific identifiable events or circumstances, preferring to use terms like propter vitae istius turbedines ac procellas (Ep. 2.52) and necessitate temporis (Ep. 2.65). Despite his oblique and
92
93

This makes a sharp contrast to the Roman silence on similar subjects.
34
chapter two
rhetorical style, however, and the fact that most of his letters are concerned
with friendship and recommendation, it is possible to divine that at least
on one occasion Ruricius was involved in negotiations to ransom a prisoner
(Ep. 2.8), and that some of his family were moving south, presumably to
escape the Goths (Epp. 2.34, 2.36, 2.40), which he tried to facilitate by letters
of recommendation.
A more important witness than Ruricius letters to crisis management
in Gaul is the correspondence of Avitus, bishop of Vienne (d. 518), which
contains some expansive details about contemporary crises. Apart from his
concern about the Acacian schism (Epp. 7, 8 (?), 33, 34, 87), Avitus informs
us about the ransoming of captives, both Italian and Burgundian (Epp. 10,
35, 49). Apparently at the request of the Arian Burgundian king, Gundobad,
he composed two tractates against Eutychianism in letter-form (Epp. 86, 87;
cf. 30). However, Avitus real engagement is with the Arian-catholic schism,94
in the course of which we encounter indications of religious pluralism in
Gaul at the time. Letter 23 to the catholic Sigismund, who succeeded as Burgundian king in 516, reports a secret theological debate held in the presence
of Gundobad; in Letter 31 to Sigismund Avitus enquires about the situation of Arians in Geneva, where the king has instituted an annual debate
between Arians and catholics. Elsewhere we hear of a lay orator defending
the catholic position in the presence of a king, presumed to be Gundobad
(Ep. 53). When Sigismund celebrates the Arian Easter with Gundobad, Avitus comments that this is a diplomatic gesture (Ep. 77). In Letter 7 we
have an historically important discussion of the transfer of previously Arian
churches to the catholics: Avitus is concerned that, should the Arians return
to power in Burgundy, such acceptance of their churches could be viewed
as persecution and result in further religious tensions. He advocates that
former Arian churches should be left abandoned and their sacred vessels
melted down, although he is aware that his views are not shared by all Gallic catholics. In his account of the conversion of the Frankish Clovis from
paganism to Christianity and his baptism (Ep. 46), Avitus mentions that others, presumably Arians, had attempted to convert Clovis to their creed. Like
Ruricius, Avitus often uses a coded style of writing, which may be a reflection
of the times in which they both wrote and consequently of the vulnerability
of the letter-bearer, as outlined vividly by Sidonius.
Although episcopal letters survive from Lyon, Reims, Arles, and Valence,
like those from Latin-speaking North Africa they are few in number and
94
On which see the section on Arianism in Chapter 5.

uninformative in general. Similarly, epistolary remains from bishops outside
Rome and those in Spain are patchy. We are thus thrown back on the
substantive collections to ascertain the crises of the day and how bishops
managed them. It is to the first of these crises, population displacement,
that we now turn.
chapter three
POPULATION DISPLACEMENT
Introduction
As we demonstrated in Chapter 1, the catastrophes and crises that appear in
letters by Greek- and Latin-speaking bishops of the fifth and sixth centuries
were of a regional nature; they were relatively common, and they personally
affected the bishop or else he did not write about them.1 As is the case with
much contemporary population displacement, most displaced persons in
Late Antiquity were driven from their homelands by violent conflict and/or
religious dissent. Displacement could also be the result of the poverty cycle
and food shortages, which forced inhabitants of rural areas to seek employment and handouts in cities. The displaced persons examined here may
be divided into three major groups: (1) prisoners of war, (2) exiles, and (3)
asylum-seekers and refugees.
Displacement of personseven across boundaries separating the provinces of the later Roman empire, or what today we would call countries
operated in a local context, not a global one. The movement of large volumes
of people away from trouble-spots was inevitable when border controls were
non-existent, and people could pass unhindered (except by marauding bandits, pirates and/or slave-traders) from one province to another on foot, on
horseback, or by boat. Natural barriersmountain ranges such as the Alps,
or the wide rivers of Central Europe such as the Rhine and the Danube, or
the deserts of upper Egyptposed the greatest challenges to those fleeing
their homelands in search of food and safety. Our sources contain no record
of any regular services being provided by the local, provincial or imperial
government, although ad hoc assistance, such as donation of funds for buying ransoms, and gifts of food, money and clothing, were probably available
on occasion to Roman citizens. By the fifth century, much of this civic activity passed to the responsibility of bishops.
42.
Some elements of this chapter may be found in Neil, Allen, Displaced Peoples, pp. 29
38
chapter three
The local context of late-antique population displacement determined a

different set of episcopal responses from those appropriate today. Without
Interpol or passports, the only means of performing character checks was
through letters of recommendation, written from one notable to another
vouching for the character of the letter-bearer. Letters of recommendation
to and from bishops were the late-antique equivalent of permanent protection visas, as we shall see in the case-study on Theodoret of Cyrrhus. As in the
contemporary situation, displaced persons were from all socio-economic
backgrounds and of all ages. However, our episcopal sources prefer to focus
only on those of high status, such as other clergy and aristocrats. Citizenship
was then, as now, a key criterion in the reception of refugees.2 We have no
information about the treatment of those who arrived unauthorized, without such letters of recommendation or Roman citizenship. In the absence of
government assistance, victims of conflict and religious persecution could
be helped by local church communities, at the discretion of the bishop.
Late-antique letters provide little evidence of public attitudes towards
displaced persons. Homilies that advocate giving alms to the needy often
ranked strangers and exiles alongside the more obvious candidates for
aid: the hungry, the thirsty, the naked and the sick.3 The frequency of such
admonitions suggests healthy levels of community prejudice against any
new arrivals in their midst. We consider the three major groups of displaced persons in turnprisoners of war, exiles, and asylum-seekers and
refugeesand the strategies adopted by bishops to deal with them, exemplified by case-studies where the evidence admits it.
Prisoners of War
Prisoners of war were an important category of displaced persons for bishops, since bishops were often the ones who took up the responsibility for
releasing them by payment of ransoms, but they are little discussed in episcopal letters. This may have been due to an overall reticence on violent
conflict, which will be discussed in Chapter 5. The capture of citizens in war
produced no shortage of conundrums for bishops. What was the status of a
marriage undertaken after one partner had been taken prisoner, and was not
expected to return alive? At the beginning of the fifth century, under the law
2 On the economic importance of citizenship in the fourth and fifth centuries, see Allen,
Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty, pp. 212215.
3 E.g. Leo ag., Serm. 10.12; CCSL 138, pp. 3941.
population displacement
39
of restoration of property upon rescue from captivity (ius postliminii), all of

a ransomed citizens rights were returned to them, except for the restoration
of a marriage contracted before the abduction, unless both parties agreed.4
Pope Innocent (401/402417) was approached to rule on such a case, that
of a woman who had been ransomed from captivity and returned home to
find her husband happily remarried. Innocent predictably ruled that Ursas
first marriage was still valid, but his ruling had no legal force, although it
would have exerted a strong pressure on those who wished to have their
marriage recognized by the church.5 Pope Leo followed suit, with some concession made to pastoral concerns.6 In the sixth century Justinian reformed
the postliminium to allow remarriage only after a five-year wait for the missing spouse to return. Within the five-year period, a marriage could only be
dissolved with legal penalties if the missing spouse was known to be alive.7
Ransom moneys were traditionally owed as a debt to the one who had
paid it. Ransoms also had to be paid for free citizens captured by slave
traders such as the Galatian people-dealers operating in the Mediterranean
in the 420s, whose plight Augustine discussed in his letters, describing their
ransom as an act of almsgiving.8 The clergy of Hippo ransomed some 120
of these victims, men and women. As well as adding to their reputation
for Christian charity, in this way the bishops increased their patronage
networks.9 The sale of church property, especially church plate, to ransom
4 K. Sessa, Ursas Return: Captivity, Remarriage, and the Domestic Authority of Roman
Bishops in Fifth-Century Italy, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 401432 at p. 413. Sessa, p. 402, notes
that Roman citizens who were kidnapped by enemy forces lost all their citizen rights, from
property ownership and patria potestas to the contraction of a legitimate marriage.
5 Ep. 36 to Probus; PL 20, 602603. See G.D. Dunn, The Validity of Marriage in Cases
of Captivity: The Letter of Innocent I to Probus, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis 83
(2007), pp. 107121. Cf. Sessa, Ursas Return, p. 422 n. 74, where she disagrees with Dunn,
The Validity, pp. 115116: Innocent did not underline the antithesis between civil and
ecclesiastical law; he attempted to find common ground between them.
6 Leo, Ep. 159 to Nicetas; PL 54, 1138A1140A (21 March 458). See Neil, Leo the Great,
pp. 139140; Sessa, Ursas Return, pp. 423429.
7 Sessa, Ursas Return, p. 415, and lit. cited there in nn. 50 and 51.
8 Ep. 10*.7; NBA 23A, pp. 84, 86. The letter dates to between 415 and 420: NBA 23A,
p. LXII. See the studies on those taken into captivity: in North Africa, J. Roug, Escroquerie et
brigandage en Afrique romaine au temps de saint Augustin (Epist. 8* et 10*), in Les lettres de
saint Augustin, pp. 177188 at pp. 183188; C. Lepelley, Libert, colonat et esclavage daprs
la Lettre 24*: la jurisdiction piscopale de liberali causa , in Les lettres de saint Augustin,
pp. 329342; in Gaul, Klingshirn, Charity and Power, pp. 183203.
9 Klingshirn, Charity and Power, p. 198, on Symmachus activities as redemptor captivorum, and amator pauperum: Indeed, [Symmachus] willingness to use the wealth of the
church on behalf of clerics, captives, peregrini and the poorwhat the senate most feared
40
chapter three
prisoners is not mentioned in our sources, although it is clear from conciliar

canons that some bishops went to such lengths. Augustine is said by his
hagiographer Possidius to have done so, perhaps following the example
of his mentor Ambrose.10 A letter of the bishops of Tours to the people,
preserved in the acta of the second Council of Tours (567), prescribed that
residents should deposit a tithe with the bishop to cover ransoms.11 Irish
penitentials of the period contain references to collections towards ransom
funds, sometimes made with fraudulent intent.12 While the ransoming of
prisoners was celebrated in Libri Pontificales of Rome and Ravenna, and
in hagiography more generally,13 they are curiously absent from epistolary
corpora. An exception is Gelasius I (492496) who makes two mentions of
redeeming captives in his letters. He petitions Rusticus, bishop of Lyons,
to help Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia (466496), who is about to come to
Lyons to discover and redeem captives of his people in those parts.14 Gelasius
directs the bishops of Sicily to distribute church funds to the needy (i.e.
made it possible for him to exercise a greater and more extensive patronage than any other
Roman aristocrat.
10 Augustini vita scripta a Possidio episcopo 24.15; ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen, Vita di Cipriano.
Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Agostino, 4th ed., Vite dei Santi dal secolo III al secolo IV, vol. 3 (Milan,
1997), pp. 127241 at p. 194. 6668. Ambrose of Milan defends his actions against critics in De
off. 2.28.136143; ed. I.J. Davidson, Ambrose. De officiis. Edited with an Introduction, Translation,
and Commentary, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2002), vol. 1, pp. 342348. Synods
that proscribed the selling of church plate by bishops include the Council of Arles (314) in
Canon 14; ed. C. Munier, Concilia Galliae a. 314a. 506, CCSL 148B (Turnhout, 1963), pp. 12, 42
51. The Council of Clichy (626627) in Canon 25 made an exception for bishops who were
forced to sell holy vessels in order to redeem captives: Si quis episcopus, excepto si evenerit
ardua necessitas pro redemtione captiuorum, ministeria sancta frangere pro qualemcumque
conditione presumpserit, biennio ab officio cessauit ecclesiae. Ed. C. De Clercq, Concilia
Galliae a. 511a. 695, CCSL 148A (Turnhout, 1963), p. 296.
11 Council of Tours II (a. 567), Epistula prouinciae Turonensis ad plebem; CCSL 148A, p. 199,
6981. They speak of an imminent slaughter (cladem), possibly a plague.
12 Ed. L. Bieler, The Irish Penitentials (Dublin, 1963; repr. 1975), pp. 5455, 8485, 8687 and
126127.
13 See also the Greek Vita Melaniae 1920; ed. D. Gorce, SC 90 (Paris, 1962), pp. 168171;
Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii 9899 and 136177; ed. Vogel, MGH AA 7 (Berlin, 1885; repr. Munich,
1981), pp. 96, 101106; Eugippius, Vita Severini 910; ed., trans. P. Rgerat, SC 374 (Paris, 1991),
pp. 202209; on Paulinus of Nolas ransom of a widows son, see Gregory the Great, Dialogi
3.1.18; eds., trans. A. de Vog, P. Antin, SC 260 (Paris, 1979), pp. 256257. We are grateful
to Stephen Lake for these references from his forthcoming work, The Church and the Sick
(in preparation). On the ransoming of prisoners and slaves in Merovingian hagiography, in
particular, see F. Graus, Die Gewalt bei den Anfngen des Feudalismus und die Gefangenenbefreiungen der merowingischen Hagiographie, Jahrbuch fr Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1 (1961),
pp. 61156.
14 Ep. 13; ed. Thiel, p. 359. Cf. Vita Epiphanii, 151; MGH AA 7, p. 103.
41
widows, orphans, paupers and clerics), and claim the remainder for themselves, so that they can offer largesse to travellers (peregrini) and captives.15
Such episcopal largesse is often mentioned in contemporary historiography
but rarely in bishops letters. According to Prosper of Aquitaines Epitoma
chronicon, many thousands of people were taken prisoner in 455 during
Geiserics sack of Rome, chosen for their age and their skills,16 but Leo makes
no mention of ransoming these or any other prisoners in his collected letters. Indeed he does not mention leading a senatorial deputation to the Hun
leader Attila in 453, which paid a substantial sum to avert the Huns capture
of Rome.
Prisoners need not be from a bishops own see to warrant aid. Avitus of
Vienne was involved in the ransoming of Italian captives from Gundobad
in 494/6 undertaken by Epiphanius of Pavia, which is again not mentioned
in Avitus relatively large letter-collection.17 In a letter to Eustorgius, bishop
of Milan, it transpires that Avitus had helped Eustorgius to ransom Italian
prisoners, but had not received money in return for Burgundian prisoners
taken by Theodoric.18 Shanzer and Wood comment, The operation may well
have been one of mutual ransoming.19 In a later letter to Maximus of Pavia,20
who is in charge of caring for Gallic captives and assisting their relatives who
come from Gaul to ransom them, Avitus recommends a priest who is also
travelling there in search of a relative. He also petitions Maximus to locate
Avulus, the son of a nobleman, who had been taken as a hostage four years
earlier. Avitus requests a letter of confirmation that those hostages in exile
there are able to regain their freedom.
Even enemy prisoners were sometimes ransomed, if we are to believe the
account of the historian Socrates, who reports that Acacius, the fifth-century
bishop of Amida, melted church plate to ransom around 7000 starving
15 Ep. 17.1; ed. Thiel, p. 382: Reliquum sibi episcopi vindicent, ut, sicut antea diximus,
peregrinorum atque captivorum largitores esse possint.
16 Prosper, Epitoma Chronicon edita primum a. CCCXXXIII continuata ad a. CCCCLV, 1375,
a. 455; ed. T. Mommsen, Chronicorum minorum saec. IVVII, MGH AA 9 (Berlin, 1892; repr.
1961), vol. 1, p. 484.
17 Cf. Ennodius, Vita Epiphanii 170; ed. Vogel, MGH AA 7, p. 105, 2632; Vita Epiphanii 173
174; ibid., p. 106, 613.
18 Avitus, Ep. 10; ed. R. Peiper, MGH AA 6/2 (Berlin, 1883), p. 44 (c. 508 ce); trans. D. Shanzer,
I. Wood, Avitus of Vienne, Letters and Selected Prose (Liverpool, 2002), pp. 351352. We follow
the numbering of Shanzer and Wood.
19 Shanzer, Wood, Avitus of Vienne, p. 351.
20 Avitus, Ep. 12; ed. Peiper, MGH AA 6/2, p. 45; trans. Shanzer, Wood, pp. 352353. See also
Avitus, Ep. 35 to the prefect Liberius, trans. Shanzer, Wood, pp. 355356.
42
chapter three
Persian prisoners from the Byzantines, supported them for a while and sent
them home with supplies for the journey.21
In the early sixth century Symmachus of Rome and Caesarius of Arles
were both celebrated for the charitable activity of ransoming Roman prisoners, in northern Italy and Gaul, with funds raised by the church and the
Roman senate.22 Caesarius is said to have sold church plate (censers, chalices and patens) as well as consecrated ornaments for the purpose,23 which
outraged some of his clergy. Symmachus also sent money and clothing to
exiled bishops in the Arian sees of Africa and Sardinia.24 His surviving letters contain a letter of consolation to exiled bishops in Africa, where he
informs them that he is sending relics of Sts Nazarius and Romanus as they
had requested in letters to his deacon Hormisdas.25 Relic-donation is a novel
strategy for consolation of the displaced. Here again we find bishops writing
to each other freely to and from exile.
The Lombard invasions from 568 onwards displaced many Romans in
northern and central Italy. While the capture and destruction of cities is a
common theme in the Ravennan bishops record, Liber Pontificalis ecclesiae
Ravennatis (LPR), prisoners of war do not rate a mention in the letters. LPR
focuses only on royal captives such as the deposed Lombard Queen Malasuintha, sent into exile in Volsena in 533.26 Another royal hostage was the
daughter of the Lombard king Agilulf, whom the Roman general Gallinicus captured in Parma with her husband Godescalc at the end of the sixth
century or early seventh century. The royal couple was taken to the imperial court at Ravenna; in retaliation, Agilulf destroyed the city of Cremona
and harassed Mantua.27 No episcopal action on behalf of Arian royalty could
be expected. The chapter devoted to Bishop Marinian (595606) provides
slight evidence that ransoming captives was considered part of a Raven-
21 Socrates, HE 7.21.16; ed. G.C. Hansen, Sokrates: Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF 1 (Berlin,

1995), pp. 367368 (c. 422ce).
22 LP 1, p. 263: Hic captivos per Ligurias et Mediolano et per diversas provincias pecuniis
redemit et dona multiplicavit et dimisit. He ransomed for cash prisoners in the Ligurias,
Milan and various provinces; he gave them many gifts and let them go their way. Trans. Davis,
p. 48.
23 The sale of church plate: Vita Caesarii Arelatensis, 1.32; ed. G. Morin, trans. M.-J. Delage,
SC 536 (Paris, 2010), pp. 190192; the objections of his clergy: Vita Caesarii Arelatensis 1.33;
SC 536, p. 192. See discussion in Klingshirn, Charity and Power, pp. 189192, 198199.
24 LP 1, p. 263.
25 Ep. 11; ed. Thiel, pp. 708709, dated to between 507 and 512. Sirmonds emendation of
the name Hormisdas in place of the manuscript reading H. is accepted by Thiel, p. 709, n. 3.
26 LPR ch. 62; ed. D.M. Deliyannis, CCCM 199 (Turnhout, 2006), p. 232.
27 LPR ch. 101; CCCM 199, p. 270.
43
nan bishops duty, where Agnellus describes the ways in which a bishop is
greater than a king: [T]he king [thinks] that he might lead rebels captive,
the bishop that he might purchase, redeem, and release captives .28 This
is obviously not an indication of when the practice began in Ravenna, and
we must remember that Agnellus was writing in the first half of the ninth
century. His first mention of a specific bishop ransoming captives is the
following bishop of Ravenna, John III (606625).29 Letters from Ravennan
bishops are sadly few, and without the witness of the LPR, three centuries
later, we would have no idea of any such activities on behalf of prisoners of war. Exceptional epistolary evidence for the ransoming of captives
comes from several letters of Gallic bishops of the late fifth century. Two
letters on ransoming were sent by Faustus of Riez to Ruricius of Limoges.
The first letter recommends the bearer who had been held captive in Lyon,
and whose wife and children are still in captivity there, and requests Ruricius aid on their behalf.30 Faustus second letter on the subject recommends
the bearer, the priest Florentius, who seeks to ransom his sister, but it is
unclear in this case what action Faustus expects Ruricius to take.31 Ruricius
wrote to the bishop of Arles commending the plight of a priest who had disposed of personal property in order to ransom his brother from unspecified
soldiersMathisen suggests they were either Bretons or Franks.32 Sidonius
Apollinaris, bishop of Clermont from 469/470, praised his brother-in-law
Ecdicius, a native of Clermont, who saved the town from the Goths. Sidonius thanks him for saving the leading families there from the scurf of Celtic
speech (sermonis Celtici squamam) and preventing them from becoming
barbarians.33 It is not clear whether this is about ransoming or military intervention. Sidonius also wrote to fellow-bishop Graecus of Marseille, begging
for help and prayers as the region of Auvergne faced Gothic invasion:
28 LPR ch. 100; CCCM 199, p. 269: rex ut captiuos ducat rebelles, episcopus ut emat
captiuos, redimat et absoluuat Trans. D.M. Deliyannis, Agnellus of Ravenna. The Book of
Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Washington, DC, 2004), p. 216.
29 LPR ch. 104; CCCM 199, p. 272: compeditorum absolutor; trans. Deliyannis, p. 218: freer
of captives.
30 Ruricius, Ep. 11; ed. Krusch, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887; repr. Munich, 1985), p. 270; trans.
R.W. Mathisen, Ruricius of Limoges and Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul,
TTH 30 (Liverpool, 1999), pp. 103104. Date: c. 485/486.
31 Ep. 12; ed. Krusch, MGH AA 8, pp. 270271; trans. Mathisen, pp. 104105. Date: c. 485/486.
32 Ruricius, Ep. 2.8; ed. Krusch, MGH AA 8, pp. 299350; to Aeonius, bishop of Arles,
concerning the priest Possessor, c. 490/502. Trans. Mathisen, Ruricius of Limoges, pp. 145146.
33 Sidonius, Ep. 3.3; ed. C. Luetjohann, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887), p. 41, 15. Trans. W.B. Anderson, Sidonius: Poems and Letters, Loeb Classical Library 420, 2nd ed. (London, UK, Cambridge,
MA, 1965, repr. 1984), vol. 2, pp. 1221.
44
chapter three
If you cannot save us in our extremity, at least secure by unceasing prayer that
the blood of those whose liberty is doomed may still survive; provide land for
the exiles, ransom for the captives-to-be, and aid for the refugees on their way.
If our walls are opened to admit our foes, let not yours be closed to exclude
your friends.34
Although Gaul offers the richest evidence for episcopal involvement in

the ransom of captives, it is not sufficient to warrant a case-study of any
particular bishop.
Exile, Flight, Confinement
In the fifth and sixth centuries we have epistolary evidence of countless bishops being exiled from their sees, taking to flight, or being confined in various
ways, thus constituting a crisis for themselves and their flocks.35 Greek terms
used in our sources are exoria (indicating temporary or permanent banishment or deportation) and periorismos (connoting a confinement within prescribed parameters). Common Latin terms are exilium, relegatio and deportatio.36 Abundant evidence of bishops relegation is also available from other
literary sources, such as chronicles and histories. Many of these bishops were
forced to leave their sees as a result of imperial edicts; others fled the hostile
local populace; still others were imprisoned, confined to their sees, or con34 Sidonius, Ep. 7.7; ed. C. Luetjohann, MGH AA 8, p. 111, 2529; trans. Anderson, vol. 2,
p. 331.
35 In general see E. Grasmck, Exilium. Untersuchungen zur Verbannung in der Antike,
Rechts- und staatswissenschaftliche Verfffentlichungen der Grres-Gesellschaft, NF 30
(Paderborn, 1978); M. Vallejo Girvs, Obispos exiliados: Mrtires politicos entre el Concilio
de Nicea y la eclosin monofisita, in ed. E. Reinhardt, Tempus implendi promissa. Homenaje
al professor Domingo Ramos-Lissn, Instituto de historia de la Iglesia, Facultad de teologa,
Universidad de Navarra, Historia de la Iglesia 33 (Pamplona, 2000), pp. 507533; also the volumes edited (1) by P. Blaudeau, Exil et relgation: les tribulations du sage et du saint durant
l antiquit romaine et chrtienne (I erVI e sicle ap. J.-C.). Actes du colloque organis par le Centre Jean-Charles Picard, Universit de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne, 1718 juin 2005 (Paris, 2008),
esp. R. Delmaire, Exile, relgation, dportation dans la lgislation du Bas-Empire, pp. 115
132, E. Wirbelauer, Comment exiler un pape?, pp. 255272, and Blaudeau, Quand les papes
parlent d exil: laffirmation d une conception pontificale de la peine dloignement durant
la controverse monophysite (449523), pp. 273308; and (2) by Leemans et al., eds., Episcopal Elections. On literature from exile see J.-M. Claassen, Displaced Persons. The Literature of
Exile from Cicero to Boethius (Madison, WI, 1999), esp. pp. 915; B. Neil, From tristia to gaudia. The Exile and Martyrdom of Pope Martin I, in ed. J. Leemans, Martyrdom and Persecution
in Late Antique Christianity. Festschrift Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 241 (Leuven, 2010), pp. 179194.
36 On the implications of these terms see further Delmaire, Exile, relgation, dportation; Vallejo Girvs, Obispos exiliados: Mrtires, pp. 507533.
45
signed to monasteries.37 We have examples of bishops who went into hiding,

not necessarily abroad, or, who, as in the case of Theodoret of Cyrrhus,
lived in exile in their sees. Still others, like the bishops of Rome, John I,
Silverius and Vigilius, were incarcerated at a distance from their jurisdiction,
in Ravenna, the Pontine islands and Constantinople respectively.38
At the second Council of Ephesus in 449 we have the sordid episode of
the condemnation of Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, followed by violent physical attacks on his person which caused his death in exile shortly
afterwards.39 However, without a doubt the greatest catalyst for the banishment of bishops during these two centuries was the religious conflict that
followed the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The patriarchate of Antioch and
the church of Syria in general suffered more than most, particularly after
the Chalcedonian restoration by Emperor Justin I from 518 onwards. That
period witnessed a mass exodus of bishops,40 clergy and monastics, testified
to in the letters of Severus, patriarch of Antioch (512518), who spent twenty
years in refuge in Egypt. We deal in detail infra with Severus as a refugee.41
The formation of a shadow anti-Chalcedonian episcopate during the reign
of Justinian meant that many threatened bishops like Severus spent most
of their time in hiding and that succession was hotly contested, as we read
in a remarkable dossier of letters, DM.42 The most notorious of these late
sixth-century bishops is the divisive patriarch of Antioch, Paul the Black
(564581), who spent the years 575581 in exile in Constantinople and other
periods in the camp of the Christian Arab leader al-Moundhir.43
37 On this last group see M. Vallejo Girvs, Obispos exiliados y confinados en monasterios en poca protobyzantina, Praktika 2, Parnassos Literary Society (2002), pp. 947965;
Delmaire, Exile, relgation, dportation, pp. 123124 (mostly on imperial officials); J. Hillner,
Monastic Imprisonment in Justinians Novels, JECS 15/2 (2007), pp. 205237.
38 On these three bishops of Rome see T. Sardella, EDP, 1, s.v. Giovanni I, pp. 483487, and
C. Sotinel, ibid., s.v. Silverio, pp. 508512 and ibid., s.v. Vigilio, pp. 512529, respectively. The
exile of Vigilius is discussed in more detail in Case-study 3 below.
39 See in detail H. Chadwick, The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A
Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon, JTS 6 (1955), pp. 1734.
40 See further E. Honigmann, vques et vchs monophysites dAsie antrieure au VI e
sicle, CSCO 127, Subsidia 2 (Louvain, 1951), pp. 142154; V.L. Menze, Justinian and the Making
of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008), pp. 2234.
41 See Case-study 5 below; see also Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch, pp. 2530, 52
54. On Severus period in exile see Y.N. Youssef, Severus of Antioch in Scetis, Ancient Near
Eastern Studies 43 (2006), pp. 142163, with literature.
42 See further Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 265303; Menze, Making of the
Syrian Orthodox Church; P. Allen, Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century, in
eds. Leemans et al., Episcopal Elections, pp. 2438.
43 Details in E.W. Brooks, The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of
46
chapter three
The situation in Egypt after Chalcedon was also volatile, as we know from
letters of the Alexandrian Patriarch Timothy Aelurus, who spent most of his
patriarchate (457477) in banishment at Gangra (460464) and the Chersonese (464/5475).44 Timothy was, however, not totally bereft of scholarly
resources, as we can see from a series of proof-texts against Eutychianists
appended to his first surviving letter from Gangra.45 From Gallic bishops we
have numerous letters describing the exile of many of them for religious
or political reasons.46 Let two examples suffice here. Bishop Faustus of Riez
was banished in 477 during the reign of the Arian Visigothic king Euric for
his anti-Arian writings. His place of exile seems to have been Limoges chez
Bishop Ruricius.47 Because of his resistance to the Visigoths, Bishop Sidonius
Apollinaris of Clermont-Ferrand was exiled first in 475 to the area around
Carcassonne and imprisoned there. He relates with pathos the anxieties he
experienced, including his accommodation downstairs from two old Gothic
women who quarrelled, drank and vomited all the time.48 Sidonius then
went to Bordeaux, where the imperial court was in residence and where he
was able to negotiate his return to his see.49 In North Africa during the first
575, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1930), pp. 468476. See Case-study 2 on DM in Chapter 5

below.
44 See R.Y. Ebied, L.R. Wickham, A Collection of Unpublished Letters of Timothy Aelurus,
JTS ns 21 (1970), pp. 321369. On Timothy see P. Blaudeau, Timothe Aelure et la direction
ecclsiale de l Empire post-chalcdonien, Revue des tudes Byzantines 54 (1996), pp. 107
133, esp. 112 on Timothys exiles. For the Chersonese as a place of exile see E. Jastrzebowska,
Chersonse dans l Antiquit tardive: tat des recherches et bibliographie, Antiquit Tardive
9 (2001), pp. 399418.
45 Ep. ad Constantinopolitanos (CPG 5476), where extracts from Athanasius, Julius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom are cited.
46 See in detail F. Prvot, V. Gauge, vques gaulois lpreuve de lexil aux V e et VIe
sicles, in ed. Blaudeau, Exil et relgation, pp. 309349.
47 See Epp. 6, 9 (and possibly 10).
48 Ep. 8.3; see A. Loyen, Sidone Apollinaire. Tome III. Lettres (Livres VIIX) (Paris, 1970),
p. 86. For the flight of Sidonius son Apollinaris in 479, see R.W. Mathisen, Emigrants, Exiles,
and Survivors: Aristocratic Options in Visigothic Aquitania, Phoenix 38/2 (1984), pp. 159
170 at p. 167. On the quality of accommodation for exiles cf. the complaints of the antiChalcedonian bishop of Mabbug, Philoxenus, in a letter to his monks from his place of exile
in Gangra, to the effect that he was shut up in a room above the kitchen of a caravanserai,
and was suffocated by the smoke: ed. A. de Halleux, Philoxne de Mabbog, Lettre aux moines
de Senoun, CSCO 231, Scr. Syr. 98, pp. 9394 (text), CSCO 232, Scr. Syr. 99, pp. 7778 (trans.)
(Louvain, 1963).
49 Epp. 7.7.6, 9.3.3. On the former see J. van Waarden, Writing to Survive. A Commentary on
Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters Book 7, vol. 1: The Episcopal Letters 111, LAHR 2 (Leuven, 2010),
pp. 334378.
47
two decades of the sixth century there was a mass exile of bishops to Sardinia
and other destinations as a result of the Arian Vandal occupation, a crisis
that will be discussed when we come to our second case-study, Fulgentius
of Ruspe.
Asylum-Seekers and Refugees
Churches and altars in particular, offered the right of sanctuary to asylumseekers from the end of the fourth century,50 as numerous episcopal letters
attest.51 Bishops imposed excommunication on those who violated the sanctuary of the church.52 The custom of ecclesial sanctuary was enforced by
a constitution issued in 431, which charged those who violated it with the
crime of sacrilege.53 Nevertheless, the law was often violated, as four fragmentary letters of Gelasius show. Those who are reported to have forced
someone out of a churchs sanctuary are deemed unworthy of entering it.54
The right of sanctuary did not apply to runaway slaves, however: a slave who
fled to a church in fear of his master would be given back to his master if an
50 See A. Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere. Naissance du droit dasile dans les glises (IV e
milieu du V e s.), De l archologie histoire (Paris, 1994), and the lit. there cited; Rapp, Holy
Bishops, pp. 253258, gives a survey of canon law and imperial edicts on ecclesiastical asylum
up to the sixth century.
51 E.g. Ruricius, Ep. 2.20; ed. Krusch, MGH AA 8, p. 329. The letter is addressed to Rusticus
(c. 490/500), probably a friend of Sidonius Apollinaris, resident at Bordeaux, and intercedes
on behalf of Baxo, apparently a dependent of Rusticus, who has sought refuge in a church in
Userca (Uzerche). Ruricius advises Rusticus to reap the spiritual benefits of pardoning Baxo.
See also Augustine, Ep. 22.3*; NBA 23A, p. 194: Ita fit, ut perpaucis qui confugiunt ad ecclesiam
utcumque solacio uel praesidio esse ualeamus , where he bemoans the fact that bishops
can only give assistance to a very small number of those who seek refuge within the church
(March 420); Firmus of Caesarea, Ep. 43, eds. Calvet-Sebasti, Gatier, pp. 166167, discusses the
case of runaway slaves or coloni who had sought asylum in the Basiliades in Caesarea, and
from there fled to another spot, leaving the director of the Basiliades to pay all their taxes (cf.
a similar circumstance in Firmus, Ep. 36, both letters being written before 439).
52 Augustine, Ep. 1* to Classicianus; NBA 23A, pp. 26; and Ep. 250; NBA 23, pp. 860864
to Bishop Auxilius on the violation of asylum-seekers who were unworthy of it; his young
colleague Auxilius had pronounced the anathema not only on his friend Classicianus but his
whole family for violating the asylum of a churchAugustine seeks to have the anathema
lifted. The letters are examined by Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere, pp. 195201.
53 CTh 9.45.4 of 23 March 431; issued again in Greek in CJ 1.12.3, p. 65. Socrates, HE 7.33.1
5; ed. Hansen, GCS NF 1, p. 382, 619 (SC 506, p. 120), attributes the promulgation of this
law to events in November 430, when armed slaves sullied the sanctuary of a church in
Constantinople. See the discussion of Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam confugere, pp. 218220.
54 Gelasius, Frag. 39 to Bishop Epiphanius; ed. Thiel, p. 504; Frag. 40 to Bishops Victor,
Constantine, Martyrius, Felicissimus, Serenus and Timothy; ed. Thiel, pp. 504505.
48
chapter three
oath had been taken that the slave would not be punished.55 An exception
was made for Christian slaves in the service of Jewish masters, where their
faith was threatened: in the case of a Christian slave who had been forcibly
circumcised by his Jewish master and had subsequently taken refuge in the
church of Venefrana, Gelasius instructed the local bishops to investigate the
truth of the slaves claims, so that we do not deny the rights of a legitimate
master.56 By the end of the sixth century, Jews were forbidden to own Christian slaves, in Italy at least.57
Those who sought asylum outside their homelands frequently depended
on the mercy of the bishop. Refugees were often the casualties of religious controversy in their homelands, especially if they were in the minority groupArians in northern Italy and Constantinople; Manicheans and
Donatists in North Africa come into this category. From 429 many refugees
fled to Rome in the wake of persecution of non-Arian Christians in North
Africa, especially in Africa proconsularis, after the settlement of the Vandals
under the Arian king Geiseric.58 These refugees, a great number of whom
were aristocrats whose estates were seized in the Vandal settlement, sought
the assistance of the bishop of Rome for donations of food, money and clothing, but such generosity did not extend to asylum-seekers who were also
Manicheans.
Mani (d. 276/77), the Babylonian founder of Manicheism, self-proclaimed
apostle of Christ, Paraclete and seal of the prophets, attracted a huge
following with his particular brand of syncretistic gnosticism.59 In the West,
55 CTh 9.45.5, issued on 28 March 432; a later version appeared in CJ 1.12.4, p. 66. Epistolary evidence includes Gelasius, Frag. 41 to Bishop Boniface; ed. Thiel, pp. 505506; Avitus of Vienne, Ep. 44 to Gundobad, to whom Avitus returns under guard a slave who had
sought sanctuary in a church to avoid standing witness in a trial. See Ducloux, Ad ecclesiam
confugere, pp. 237259, on the limits applied to refuge in churches sought by slaves and plebeians.
56 Gelasius, Frag. 43 to bishops Siracusius, Constantius and Laurence; ed. Thiel, p. 507:
nec servus hac objectione mentitus competentis jura dominii declinare contendant. On the
circumcision of slaves by Jews cf. Constitutio Sirmondiana 4; CTh 5.910; trans. C. Pharr, The
Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Princeton, NJ, 1952), p. 479.
57 E.g. Gregory I, Reg. 2.45; ed. D. Norberg, Registrum epistularum Gregorii Magni, CCSL 140,
2 vols. (Turnhout, 1982), p. 137; Reg. 4.21; ed. Norberg, CCSL 140, p. 239. See discussion of A. Serfass, Slavery and Pope Gregory the Great, JECS 14/1 (2006), pp. 77103, esp. p. 99.
58 P. Heather, Christianity and the Vandals in the Reign of Geiseric, in eds. J. Drinkwater,
B. Salway, Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends and Pupils,
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement (London, 2007), pp. 137146.
59 On Manis titles, see the discussion in eds., trans. H.G. Schipper, J. van Oort, St. Leo the
Great, Sermons and Letters Against the Manichaeans. Selected Fragments, Corpus Fontium
Manichaeorum Series Latina 1 (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 8990; and their general bibliography at
49
the religion assumed certain characteristics common to Christianity in an

attempt to integrate into the mainstream religion, giving it the appearance
of an esoteric sect. Manichean communities in North Africa and Rome
posed a particular threat to the Christian community because they challenged it from within, by claiming to be Christians and participating in
mainstream worship. In this way they sought to make converts of orthodox Christians; women especially were said to be prone to their persuasions. They even appointed their own bishops, as for example the African
Faustus of Milevis, with whom the young Augustine debated in 385, prior
to his conversion.60 They abstained from meat and wine at all times, even
the Eucharistic sacrament of the cup, fasted on Sundays and proscribed
procreation. All of these challenges to the doctrines and ritual practices of
the catholic church, as well as their alleged immorality and their unorthodox interpretations of Scripture, combined to make them one of the most
serious threats facing the episcopal office in North Africa and Italy in the
fifth century. It seems that Spain never saw the development of a genuine
Manichean community, even though Manichean refugees from North Africa
may have fled to the Iberian peninsula in the wake of the Vandal invasions.61
The importance of letters of recommendation for establishing ones religious credentials is revealed in the decree of Pope Anastasius I (399401/2)
that any cleric arriving from overseas bring five letters of recommendation
to prove that he was not a Manichee.62 It is not stipulated that these clerics
from overseas were refugees, although it is of course possible. An imperial
edict of 425 expelled from the city of Rome Manichean heretics or schismatics or astrologers and every sect opposed to the catholics.63 In North Africa
pp. 125132. On the gnostic elements of Manicheism, see U. Bianchi, Some Reflections on the
Greek Origins of Gnostic Ontology, and the Christian Origin of the Gnostic Saviour, in eds.
A. Logan, A.J.M. Wedderburn, New Testament and Gnosis. Essays in Honour of Robert McLachlan Wilson (London, New York, 1983), pp. 3845, esp. pp. 4044. The growth of Manicheism in
Late Antiquity, and its continuation in China, is studied by S.N.C. Lieu, Manicheism in the
Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen
Testament 63, 2nd ed. (Tbingen, 1992). A recent collection focussing on the Latin West is
offered by eds. J. van Oort, O. Wermelinger, G. Wurst, Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin
West, Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 49 (Leiden, Boston, 2001). See further Grillmeier,
CCT 2, part 1, pp. 172194.
60 Augustine, Confessiones 5.3.3; NBA 1, p. 116; and Contra Faustum 1.1; NBA 14, p. 6. An
unnamed Manichean bishop was brought to trial by Leo Mag., Serm. 16.4; ed. Chavasse,
CCSL 138, p. 65.
61 Schipper, van Oort, Sermons and Letters, p. 5.
62 LP 1, p. 218.
63 CTh 16.5.62; ed. T. Mommsen, p. 877. Trans. J. Roug, Code Thodosien. Livre XVI, SC 497
(Paris, 2005), p. 328.
50
chapter three
a trial was staged under the tribune Ursus between 421 and 428, and allegations of sexual immorality were made. Given that confessions may well
have been extracted under torture,64 it is impossible to assess the truth of
the allegations.
While in their preaching bishops of Rome, like most bishops, frequently
emphasized the need for their congregations to show compassion to strangers and exiles,65 there were clear limitations imposed on such generosity. In
a homily delivered on the fast of December in December 443, Leo explicitly
condemned the Manichees who have become more numerous amongst us
due to the disturbances in other regions.66 In 443 to 444, Leo I convened
an investigation into the Manichean presence in Rome, presided over by
himself in the presence of bishops, members of the senate and other aristocracy.67 Leos intervention is an excellent example of a bishops use of
the strategy of social exclusionbacked by a successful appeal to imperial
authorityto deal with the religious and practical problems posed by the
influx of Manichees to the city of Rome.68
In letters and homilies Leo encouraged the laity and clergy to search out
and denounce Manichees and to avoid all contact with them.69 The relaxation of the normal penalties for false denunciations meant that no contrary
law suit could be brought against the accuser or any stiff penalties applied if
the accusation was found to be false.70 Prosper claimed that Leos investigation in Rome had salutary effects for the whole world since the Manichees,
in their forced confessions, had named members of other urban networks of
teachers, bishops and priests.71 Theodoret of Cyrrhus joined Prosper in prais-
64
Hormisdas ch. 9; LP 1, p. 270.

E.g. Leo I, Serm. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 on the November Collects; and Serm. 8694 on the
September fasts. See the discussion of the sources by Freu, Les figures du pauvre, pp. 430431.
66 Serm. 16.5; ed. Chavasse, p. 65: Hos itaque homines, dilectissimi, per omnia exsecrabiles
atque pestiferos, quos aliarum regionum perturbatio nobis intulit crebriores, ab amicitia
uestra penitus abdicate. Leos Serm. 16 is among the anti-Manichean documents in Schipper,
van Oort, Sermons and Letters.
67 Leo Mag., Ep. 7; eds., trans. Schipper, van Oort, pp. 4649; Serm. 16; ed. Chavasse,
CCSL 138, pp. 6167. See discussion of these sources in Lieu, Manicheism, pp. 204206; other
texts in which Leo deals with Mani and Manicheism are dealt with by Schipper, van Oort,
Sermons and Letters, pp. 113118.
68 See Neil, A Crisis of Orthodoxy, pp. 148151.
69 E.g. Leo Mag., Ep. 7.2 (PL 54, 621B622A); cf. Serm. 9.4 (ed. Chavasse, CCSL 138, p. 37);
Serm. 16.5 (ed. Chavasse, CCSL 138, p. 66); Serm. 34.5 (ed. Chavasse, CCSL 138, pp. 186187);
Serm. 42.5 (ed. Chavasse, CCSL 138A, pp. 246248).
70 Valentiniani novella 18; eds. Schipper, van Oort, Sermons and Letters, p. 50.
71 Prosper, Epitoma Chronicon, 1350, a. 443; ed. Mommsen, p. 479.
65
51
ing Leos zeal, saying that it had inspired many eastern clerics to do likewise,
a rare piece of evidence for the presence of Manicheans in the East.72
In such a climate of surveillance and denunciation, which lasted for
some eighteen months until 444, Manichean refugees would have been
reluctant to come forward for help. Orthodoxy, as defined by the bishop of
Rome, was thus raised above Roman citizenship as a criterion for material
aid. Here we see in operation the demonizing strategy that was typical of
episcopal policies of social exclusion, especially in times of social upheaval.
Whether Roman bishops were typical in their persecution of this category
of refugees is difficult to assess in view of the lack of evidence from other
sees. In North Africa itself, Augustine of Hippo Regius (396430) certainly
disavowed discriminate giving, perhaps in reaction to his own Manichean
background: corporal works of mercy were forbidden to the Manichean
elect,73 and Manichean hearers were forbidden to give even bread or water
to any beggar who was not a Manichean.74
Gelasius (492496), while described in LP as a lover of the poor who
delivered the city of Rome from danger of famine, persecuted Manichees
who were discovered in Rome, burning their books and ordering the persons
to be deported into exile.75 His attitude is reflected in a form letter sent to
any city on the appointment of a new bishop, warning the bishop not to
ordain Africans, because they have often proved to be Manichees, or to have
been baptized twice.76 This is especially interesting in light of Gelasius own
African background.77 In a letter to the people of Brundisium, announcing
the ordination of their new bishop, Julian, Gelasius informs them that Julian
will have to beware ordaining any peregrini or unknown persons or former
penitents, because they are barred from the reverend offices.78
72 Theodoret, Ep. 113; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 3, p. 58. See discussion in Lieu, Manicheism,
pp. 205206.
73 De moribus 1.27.54; NBA 13/1, p. 84; cf. A.D. Fitzgerald, Mercy, Works of Mercy, in
ed. A.D. Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999),
pp. 557561, at p. 559.
74 Augustine, De moribus 2.15.36; NBA 13/1, p. 156.
75 Gelasius: LP 1, p. 255; Ep. 42.8; ed. Thiel, p. 467, proscribing the opuscula of Faustus the
Manichean.
76 Ep. 15.1; ed. Thiel, p. 379: Afros passim ad ecclesiasticos ordines praetendentes nulla
ratione suscipiat, quia aliqui eorum Manichaei, aliqui rebaptizati saepius sunt probati. Cf.
Gregory I, Reg. 2.37, to which we refer below in n. 81.
77 See discussion of the sources on this question in B. Neil, The Letters of Gelasius I
(492496): A New Model of Crisis Management? in ed. G. Dunn, The Bishop of Rome in Late
Antiquity (forthcoming).
78 Ep. 16.1; ed. Thiel, p. 381: Quod etiam de peregrinis atque incognitis vel ex poenitentibus
52
chapter three
Likewise Symmachus (498514) found and exiled Manichees in Rome,

after being accused by the emperor of converting from Manicheism himself. His apologia against this charge is the only evidence of his crusade
against Manichees in Rome.79 His successor Hormisdas (514523) also investigated Manichees under torture and sent them into exile. LP explicitly
links this persecution with the restoration of the catholic episcopate in
North Africa after 74 years of Arian control (from 429).80 Again there is no
mention of Hormisdas taking action against Manichees in his c. 150 letters. After the Byzantine reconquest of North Africa and the restoration
of catholicism there, the problem of Manicheans in general seems to have
abated: no further bishops are recorded as encountering problems with
them in Rome, although Gregory the Great continued to be wary, warning
the bishops of Squillace not to ordain Africans in case they turned out to be
Manicheans.81
Conclusion
It is obvious from the letters surveyed in this chapter that bishops adopted
different strategies to displacement of peoples, depending on what category
of displaced person or persons they were dealing with, and whether they
had a personal connection. The act of letter-writing was perhaps the bestdocumented of the limited range of strategies available to them. Exiled
bishops like Theodoret engaged in frenzied correspondence from exile,
offering pastoral care to their estranged flock and trying to keep their circles
of influence alive. Strategies of bishops in sede included gifts of clothing
and money, as well as letters and holy relics for the consolation of other
exiled bishops. From the early fifth century in the eastern empire, and the
end of that century in the West, bishops wrote letters of recommendation
cavere debebit, quia hujusmodi a venerabilibus prohibentur officiis. Thiel, p. 381 n. 3, notes
Siricius Ep. 6, with its vehement disapproval of some who have ordained transients and
peregrini.
79 LP 1, p. 261, ch. 5, on Symmachus persecution of Manichees in Rome after all this (post
haec omnia), meaning the rioting on the streets of Rome that followed his disputed election.
In Ep. 10.6; ed. Thiel, p. 702, an apologia to Anastasius I written after 506, he avows that he
was a convert from paganism, and had not deviated from the catholic faith (Anastasius I also
disputed the legality of Symmachus contested election). Cf. Acts of the Roman Synod of 499 =
Symmachus, Ep. 1; ed. Thiel, pp. 641654.
80 LP 1; p. 271, ch. 9.
81 Gregory I, Reg. 2.37; ed. Norberg, CCSL 140, pp. 121122 (July 592).
53
on behalf of individuals, often in response to a personal appeal, and even,

as we have seen, on behalf of Jews and slaves. Captives and prisoners of
war were given ransom payments and gifts; letters of recommendation
were written on behalf of those seeking to trace their lost relatives; and
bishops themselves were charged with retrieving persons of importance
from prison camps, as well as the care of prisoners. Asylum-seekers could
be made secure by a letter from a bishop threatening excommunication
to would-be violators of the sanctuary of the church, unless they were
slaves, in which case they were likely to be sent packing. Refugees from
barbarian invasions were welcomed in principle with material assistance
of money, food and clothing, but risked persecution, torture and exile if
they happened to be Manichean (at least in Rome). Generally speaking, the
portfolio of an attested asylum-seeker included noble birth or ecclesiastical
status, soundness of character, being of orthodox belief, having letters of
introduction, and suffering a pathetic turn of events. If the refugee was a
bishop in voluntary exile, he could expect to encounter physical dangers,
frequent changes of location, constant surveillance and a lack of access
to books or scribes. However, even under such difficult circumstances, a
bishop like Severus of Antiochthanks to his epistolary networkscould
continue to administer his patriarchate through intermediaries until his
death.
Case-Studies of Exiles, Refugees and Asylum-Seekers
Case-Study 1. Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (428431)82
The Antiochene monk-presbyter Nestorius was consecrated patriarch of
Constantinople in 428. His bitter christological and mariological disputes
with Cyril of Alexandria and his deposition at the first Council of Ephesus on
22 June 431 are all too well known. A letter from Cyril gloats about the popular support that he enjoyed over his deposed enemy.83 During the disputes
with Cyril, Nestorius demonstrated an inability to manage the looming crisis, which after his deposition precipitated the Council of Chalcedon and
eventually secured the separation of the Nestorian church. Nestorius was
first permitted to return to his monastery outside Antioch, described by
82 On the controversial figure of Nestorius see Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement,
esp. pp. 1619; Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria, pp. 255295 with lit.
83 Cyril, Ep. 20 to the clergy and people of Alexandria; PG 77, 128D129B.
54
chapter three
Delmaire as an exile in the form of relegation,84 but was then exiled successively and more severely to Petra in Arabia and to the Western Oasis
(el-Kharga) in Egypt,85 probably in a monastery which ironically was situated in the jurisdiction of his enemy, the patriarch of Alexandria.86 It was
ironical too that Nestorius came to live in the same region as another enemy,
the founder of Coptic christology, Shenoute the Great. Indeed later legend
has them coming face to face in Upper Egypt.87 In his Church History Evagrius
Scholasticus, who is also hostile to Nestorius, has preserved excerpts from
two letters written from Nestorius second place of exile, which turned out to
be eventful and epic.88 The letters, addressed to the controller (hegoumenos)
of Thebes in Upper Egypt, reveal the critical situations in which the exile
found himself. In the first instance the Oasis was devastated by the barbarian Blemmyes, who captured and killed inhabitants and torched the place.
Some captives, like Nestorius, were treated well, released by the Blemmyes,
and advised to flee the imminent attack of another barbarian tribe, the
Mazici people. While other inhabitants of the Oasis liberated by the Blemmyes made their way back to their native towns from Panopolis, Nestorius,
who had been exiled by imperial decree, wisely considered that he should
report his whereabouts to the controller and to explain the circumstances
84
Exile, relgation, dportation, p. 119.

On the nature of the location see J. Schwartz, In Oasin relegare, in ed. R. Chevallier,
Mlanges d histoire et d archologie offerts Andr Piganiol (Paris, 1966), vol. 3, pp. 14811488,
who makes the point that it was only from the fifth century onward that the Great Oasis
acquired its reputation as a ghastly location. Cf. G. Wagner, Les oasis dgypte lpoque
grecque, romaine et byzantine d aprs les documents grecs (Recherches de papyrologie et dpigraphie grecques), Bibliothque d tudes de l IFAO 100 (Cairo, 1987), pp. 117118, 126127;
M. Vallejo Girvs, Locus horribilis? El destiarro en el Gran Oasis egipcio durante la Antiqedad Tarda, in eds. M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggieri, C. Vismara, LAfrica romana. Atti del XV convengo
di studio, Tozeur, 1115 dicembre 2002 (Rome, 2004), vol. 3, pp. 691698, esp. p. 691 n. 3 on other
exiled persons there.
86 Schwartz, In Oasin relegare, pp. 14851486, points to the many Antiochene bishops
who ended up in exile in the Great Oasisalmost a tradition, he suggests.
87 See Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 4: The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451
(London, Louisville, KY, 1996), pp. 207213 = Eng. trans. by O.C. Dean of Jesus der Christus
im Glauben der Kirche 2/4, Die Kirche von Alexandrien mit Nubien und thiopien nach 451
(Freiburg, 1990).
88 CPG 5677, 5678 in Evagrius, HE 1.7; eds. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History
of Evagrius with the Scholia (London, 1898; repr. Amsterdam, 1964), pp. 14, 2516, 20. Trans.
with annotations in M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, TTH 33 (Liverpool,
2000), pp. 2225. Cf. P. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian, Spicilegium Sacrum
Lovaniense, tudes et Documents 41 (Leuven, 1981), pp. 7981. On Nestorius in exile see
I. Milewski, Miejsca zsyek biskupw wschodniorzymskich w IV i IV wieku, Vox Patrum 19
(1999), pp. 367386 at pp. 380381, 383.
85
55
of his departure from his place of exile, lest he be in further trouble.89 One
of his motives in so doing, he says, was to preclude future generations from
alleging that it is better to be a captive of barbarians than a fugitive from the
Roman Empire.90 The controller was obviously not on the side of his supplicant, but may also have been uncertain how to ensure the safety of such a
high-profile exile in hostile Egyptian territory. Nestorius was conveyed from
Panopolis by barbarian soldiers to Elephantine, on the fringe of the eparchy
of Thebes, where there was a military unit that could provide protection. Yet
in Elephantine another injunction came from the controller that he was to
return to Panopolis; on reaching that town, however, Nestorius was ordered
to still another location within the territory of Panopolis. He records these
events in his letter as follows:
While reckoning that these measures against us would come to a stop, and
awaiting the decision concerning us of the gloriously victorious emperors,
suddenly yet another command was mercilessly constructed for another exile
for us, a fourth one.91
While Nestorius complains about the physical effects of his maltreatment,

he lived for a considerable time in exile (431c. 451).92 Evagrius criticises
and scorns him for reviling both the emperor and the imperial officials, and
considers the report that Nestorius tongue was eaten by worms before his
death a just and apposite punishment for his blasphemy. Apart from the
personal crisis experienced by the deposed bishop in his harsh exile, the
church as a whole did not recover either immediately or in the long term
from his deposition and banishment.93
89 On the legal implications of the abduction, captivity and liberation of the exiled Nestorius see Whitby, Ecclesiastical History, p. 23 n. 72.
90 Evagrius, HE 1.7; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, p. 15, 1213. Trans. Whitby, Ecclesiastical History,
p. 23.
91 Evagrius, HE 1.7; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, p. 16, 710. Trans. Whitby, Ecclesiastical History,
p. 24.
92 See J.F. Bethune-Baker, The Date of the Death of Nestorius: Shenoute, Zacharias,
Evagrius, JTS 9 (1908), pp. 601605. Cf. the comments of Schwartz, In Oasin relegare, p. 1485,
on the overly negative presentation of the Oasis in the ancient literature, especially from the
fifth century onwards, cited above at n. 85.
93 On this aspect of the Nestorian crisis see N.N. Seleznyov, Nestorius of Constantinople.
Condemnation, Suppression, Veneration with Special Reference to the Role of His Name in
East-Syriac Christianity, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 62 (2010), pp. 165190.
56
chapter three
Case-Study 2. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe (c. 468533)94
Less well known than Nestorius is Fulgentius of Ruspe from the province
of Byzacena in North Africa, who was educated bilingually in Greek and
Latin, becoming first tax-collector, then monk, priest and bishop. We have
eighteen surviving letters from him (CPL 817), and a biography, perhaps composed by the Carthaginian deacon Ferrandus, as well as various other works
from the bishop himself (CPL 814835). Added to these are various dubia et
spuria (CPL 836846). Ordained bishop of Ruspe in about 507, Fulgentius
was soon exiled with other catholic bishops to Sardinia in the ecclesiastical crisis caused by the Arian Vandal king, Thrasamund (c. 508/9), who
wanted to stamp out the catholic hierarchy.95 According to his hagiographer, Fulgentius lamented that he had to leave his church right from the
beginning before having been able to instruct it, a common motif in the
Lives of exiled bishops.96 Before his exile, however, Fulgentius established
a monastery in Ruspe, and lived there as a monk. On arrival in Sardinia
via Carthage, he found between 60 and 200 bishops who had already been
exiled from North Africa,97 and, although he was the newest arrival and quite
junior, according to his biographer he quickly assumed a leadership role in
the expatriate community, being commissioned to write pastoral and dogmatic letters in the name of the other bishops to the churches and faithful
back in Byzacena.98 A couple of these survive and will be discussed below. In
Cagliari Fulgentius was eventually able to found a makeshift monastery of
bishops, clergy and monks before he was ordered by Thrasamund to return
to Carthage for discussions on contentious theological points (c. 516/7).
Fulgentius remained in Carthage for about two years to discuss the truth
of catholic teaching over against the Arian position, and during this time
94 On Fulgentius see the old but still standard biography of G.-G. Lapeyre, Saint Fulgence de Ruspe. Un vque catholique africain sous la domination vandale (Paris, 1929), esp.
pp. 145171 on the circumstances of the periods of exile; H.-J. Diesner, Fulgentius von Ruspe
als Theologe und Kirchenpolitiker, Arbeiten zur Theologie 26 (Stuttgart, 1966); C. Tibiletti,
Polemiche in Africa contro i teologi provenzali, Augustinianum 26 (1986), pp. 499517.
95 See Lapeyre, Saint Fulgence, pp. 156159. On the punishment of exile to islands see
Delmaire, Exile, relgation, dportation, p. 120.
96 Vita Fulgentii, ch. 17; ed. G.-G. Lapeyre, Vie de Saint Fulgence de Ruspe de Ferrand,
diacre de Carthage (Paris, 1929), p. 87. Trans. R.B. Eno, Fulgentius. Selected Works, FOTC 95
(Washington, DC, 1997), pp. 156, here p. 35.
97 On the disparity of the numbers of these exiled bishops in the sources see Lapeyre, Saint
Fulgence, p. 157 with n. 2.
98 Vita Fulgentii, chs. 1718; ed. Lapeyre, pp. 8793.
57
composed two works in refutation of the Vandal kings position.99 The outcomes of these conversations were negative, however, and once again Fulgentius was exiled to Sardinia (518/9), where he remained until 523. In
chapter 25 of the Vita Fulgentii we are given a catalogue of works composed by Fulgentius during this second exile, several of which are lost. He
wrote letters to people in Sardinia, Africa and Rome, and composed works
on predestination, grace, and the semi-Pelagian position on these matters.
When in 523 Thrasamund died and was replaced as Vandal king by the more
favourably inclined Hilderic, the exiled catholic bishops and others in Sardinia were allowed to return to Africa, where Fulgentius composed other
works. From his period of exile, whether the first or the second, we have at
least two letters, numbers 15 and 17, written in the name of the bishops in
Sardinia.100 The first of these addresses the question of human free will and
divine grace, as if there are those who deny the doctrine of grace as understood by Fulgentius. It appears as if this dogmatic letter, to some extent at
least, is associated with the crisis posed by the semi-Pelagian controversy,
in which Fulgentius supported the position of Augustine of Hippo.101 Letter
17, addressed to Peter the deacon and others in response to Letter 16, is preserved in the collection of Fulgentius letters and deals with the doctrines of
Greek writers on christological and trinitarian questions, clearly a response
by the bilingual Fulgentius to the crises in the East after the Council of Chalcedon. The theme of predestination is also present in this letter. It is clear
from one of Fulgentius last letters, written in 532, that he had been called
upon by others to advise on eastern disputes, here the aphthartodocetist
doctrine of Julian of Halicarnassus that caused a major crisis in both the
Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian parties from the second decade of the
sixth century until at least the death of Justinian in 565.102
Even in exile Fulgentius was a pivotal figure, like Severus of Antioch,
whom people called upon for theological and pastoral advice in a time of
crisis, notwithstanding the fact that the exiles themselves were living in a
state of crisis.
99 These are Dicta regis Trasamundi et contra eius responsiones (seu Contra Arianos) (CPL
815), Ad Trasamundum regem 1, in three books (CPL 816); ed. J. Fraipont, Opera, CCSL 91
(Turnhout, 1968), pp. 6794 and 95185 respectively.
100 CCSL 91A, pp. 447457, 563615.
101 See further Tibiletti, Polemiche in Africa, with lit. on Fulgentius allegiance to Augustines views.
102 Ep. 18 ad Reginum (cf. CPL 817); CCSL 91A, pp. 619624. On the doctrine of Julian see
Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 79111.
58
chapter three
Case-Study 3. Vigilius of Rome (531555)103
Much of the episcopal career of the hapless Vigilius took place in the context of the Three Chapters controversy,104 not surprisingly a significant detail
left in abeyance by the author of the Liber Pontificalis. Let us summarize the
background to this controversy briefly: Theodore of Mopsuestia and certain
writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa (the Three Chapters)
had been endorsed at the Council of Chalcedon, but were rejected by the
anti-Chalcedonians as being unorthodox and therefore as calling the orthodoxy of the Council itself into question. In his attempts to effect ecclesiastical unity, Emperor Justinian issued an edict in 544/5 condemning the Three
Chapters, which was seen by the supporters of the Council, particularly in
the West, as a betrayal. We cannot speak absolutely of Vigilius exile, in the
sense that it is not certain whether he was abducted from Rome to Constantinople or went willingly to the eastern capital at imperial behest to deal
with the critical theological situation there.105 In any case it is an unusual
exile, relegation, or extradition, for the bishop of Rome was forced one
way or another to remain expatriated in Constantinople from 547 until 554
under imperial pressure to accede to the condemnation of the Three Chapters.
The details of Vigilius sojourn in the eastern capital and his continuous vacillations make pathetic reading. Although he had been warned by
bishops and clergy in Sardinia, Africa and Rome not to condemn the Three
Chapters, on his arrival in Constantinople he excommunicated Patriarch
Menas and all those who had signed the edict of 544/5. Empress Theodora
103 Definitive on Vigilius is C. Sotinel, EDP, 1, s.v. Vigilio, pp. 512529. See also J. Richards, The
Pope and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages, 476752 (London, 1979), pp. 125, 129133, 141160.
Cf. C. Sotinel, The Three Chapters, the Transformations of Italy, in eds. C. Chazelle, C. Cubitt,
The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the SixthCentury Mediterranean, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14 (Turnhout, 2007), pp. 85120 with
lit. See R.B. Eno, Papal Damage Control in the Aftermath of the Three Chapters Controversy,
StP 19 (1989), pp. 5256 on the fall-out on the papacy after Vigilius vacillating performances
in Constantinople. See further Chapter 5, Review of Sixth-Century Christological Disputes,
infra.
104 For an overview of the controversy see R.A. Markus, C. Sotinel, Introduction, and
Epilogue, in eds. Chazelle, Cubitt, The Crisis of the Oikoumene, pp. 114, 265278. The two
letters purportedly written by Vigilius quoted by the Africans Victor of Tunnuna (Chron. ad a.
542), and Liberatus (Brev. 22), in which the pontiff supposedly agreed with anti-Chalcedonian
sentiments, need to be discounted, pace Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 276 n. 2.
See Sotinel, EDP, 1, s.v. Vigilio, p. 514. The anti-Vigilius bias of the African church would explain
these dubious pieces.
105 See Markus, Sotinel, Introduction, in eds. Chazelle, Cubitt, The Crisis of the Oikoumene, pp. 34.
59
was, however, able to reconcile the two patriarchs to each other. In mid-547
Vigilius condemned the Three Chapters in letters written to the imperial
couple,106 before embarking on what was to have been a definitive statement on the controversy, the so-called Iudicatum of 11 April 548, a balancing act between condemning the Chapters and recognising Chalcedon.107
When this document met with serious opposition in the West, particularly in Africa where the pope was excommunicated, Vigilius was forced to
retract it and to swear his allegiance to Justinian in condemning the Three
Chapters in the same sense as the emperor had done.108 The next document that informs us about Vigilius sojourn in Constantinople is a letter
apparently from the bishops of Milan109 to the Frankish envoys en route
to the eastern capital. It is staunchly pro-Vigilius. The authors claim that
the pope was more or less violently brought to Constantinople and that
after six years of being harassed by the emperor had to take flight to the
Church of St Peter in the company of Bishop Datius of Milan. After several
months the two were viciously attacked by a praetor and a large number
of soldiers, who tried to drag Vigilius away by his hair, beard and feet as
he clung to the altar in the gesture of an asylum-seeker. When the altar
collapsed, the attackers fled in panic. Some weeks later Vigilius wrote an
encyclical letter from his next place of asylum, the church of St Euphemia
in Chalcedon.110 The pope explains that when the general Belisarius and
other high officials came to the church to tell him to return to the city, he
replied:
We took refuge in this basilica with neither a financial nor a personal motive,
but solely because of a cause of offence in the church that has already, for our
sins, become notorious throughout the world.111
106
ACO 4/1, pp. 187188; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, vol. 2, pp. 7981.
ACO 4/1, pp. 11, 1212, 6.
108 See further Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 426427.
109 Although the letter (CPL 1697) is entitled Epistula clericorum Mediolanensium ad legatos
Francorum, qui Constantinopolim proficiscebatur, it is considered by Sotinel, The Three
Chapters Controversy, in eds. Chazelle, Cubitt, The Crisis of the Oikoumene, pp. 85120 at
p. 92, to be the product of a Milanese synod. This is followed by Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, p. 160. Text in E. Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, in Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Abt. 1940/2 (Munich, 1940), pp. 1825;
trans. Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, pp. 165170, who dates the document to
before 23 December 551.
110 Text in Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, pp. 110; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, pp. 170179, dated in the letter itself to 5 February 552.
111 Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, p. 1; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, p. 171.
107
60
chapter three
Vigilius recounts the maltreatment he received at the hands of the praetor and his soldiers in the Church of St Peter and appends a profession of
faith. The LP records dramatically and somewhat improbably that they
dragged him through the whole city until nightfall, then cast him into prison,
giving him amounts of bread and water, adding that Vigilius clergy who
were with him were sent into exile to work in various mines.112
Meanwhile planning was in hand for the ecumenical council that Justinian hoped would resolve the controversy around the Three Chapters
and other issues, principally Origenist doctrines. Neither emperor nor pope
attended the Fifth Ecumenical Council when it was convened in Constantinople from 5 May to 2 June 533. The assembly of eastern bishops condemned the Three Chapters and all who supported them, at the same time
removing Vigilius name from the diptychs. However, in the next communication from the expatriate pope and the western bishops, his Constitutum I,
dated 14 May 553113 and addressed to Justinian, Vigilius agrees that passages
from Theodore of Mopsuestia, sixty of which are cited at length, are heretical, but maintains that the person of Theodore should not be condemned.
Vigilius also defends Theodoret and Mari the Persian, concluding that no
ecclesiastic should contravene what he has written.114 As Price perceives,
there were only two ways in which the impasse could now be resolved
either by the formal trial and deposition of Vigilius or by his capitulation.115
In the event, on 8 December 553 the pope wrote his second letter to Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, condemning the Three Chapters.116 The
emperor being unsatisfied with this manifesto, Vigilius wrote his Constitutum II, dated 23 February 554, also known as Aetius because it is acephalous,
being read out at the Council of 553 (minus its preamble) by Aetius, archdea-
112 LP 1, p. 298: et trahentes eum per totam civitatem usque ad vesperam. Tunc missus in
custodia; dabantur ei modice panis et aqua. Clerus autem Romanus qui cum eo erant missi
in exilio per diversa metalla incidenda. Trans. Davis, p. 58. On exile to the mines (ad metalla)
see Delmaire, Exil, relgation, dportation, pp. 115116.
113 Ed. O. Guenther, Epistolae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque
ad a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio, CSEL 35 (Prague, 1895), pp. 230320; trans.
Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, vol. 2, pp. 145218.
114 Ed. Guenther, CSEL 35, p. 305; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, p. 211.
115 Acts of the Council of Constantinople, p. 214.
116 This letter is known as Scandala; ed. ACO 4/1, pp. 245247; trans. Price, Acts of the
Council of Constantinople, pp. 215218. The authenticity of this piece, together with that of
Constitutum II, also known as Aetius (see further below), was long denied. Grillmeier CCT 2,
part 2, p. 442, has the details. E. Zettl, Die Besttigung des V. kumenischen Konzils durch Papst
Vigilius. Untersuchungen ber die Echtheit der Briefe Scandala und Aetius (JK.936.937) (Bonn,
1974), resolved the debate in the affirmative.
61
con of Constantinople.117 In this document Vigilius accepts the condemnation of the Three Chapters. So concludes the unedifying seven-year exile
of Vigilius in Constantinople, from where he was repatriated to Rome only
to die along the way.
Case-Study 4. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (423c. 466)118
The letters of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus to the east of Antioch in the third
and fourth decades of the fifth century, contain various examples of a bishop
assisting asylum-seekers and refugees.119 The invasion of North Africa by the
Vandals in 429, the year before the death of Augustine of Hippo, sent shock
waves throughout the Mediterranean world. Carthage fell on 19 October
439. A huge displacement of peoples followed these crises, including many
refugees from Greek-speaking Libya who sought asylum in Syria. The pitiful
cases of some of these people, together with Latin-speakers or bilinguals,
are documented in Theodorets letters. How did a bishop like Theodoret try
to manage a crisis that originated far away and was not of his own making?
Like immigration officials today, he first had to verify the authenticity of the
refugees stories. When satisfied with this, he could assist by writing letters
of recommendation120 or safe passage. The twelve letters he composed in
117
Text in ACO 4/2, pp. 138168; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, pp. 221
269.
118 The following two case-studies contain expanded, refocused material from Neil, Allen,
Displaced Peoples, pp. 3841.
119 On Theodoret in general see T. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Bishop and the
Holy Man (Ann Arbor, MI, 2002). On the letters see M. Wagner, A Chapter in Byzantine
Epistolography: The Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948), pp. 121
179; C. Spadavecchia, The Rhetorical Tradition in the Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus, in ed.
V. Vavrnek, From Late Antiquity to Early Byantium. Proceedings of the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16th International Eirene Conference (Prague, 1985), pp. 249252; I.G. Tomkins,
The Relations between Theodoret of Cyrrhus and His City and Its Territory, with Particular
Reference to the Letters and Historia Religiosa, DPhil diss., Oxford, 1993; idem, Problems of
Dating and Pertinence in Some Letters of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Byzantion 65 (1995), pp. 176
195; P. Allen, The Syrian Church through Bishops Eyes: The Letters of Theodoret of Cyrrhus
and Severus of Antioch, StP 42 (2006), pp. 321; A.M. Schor, Theodorets People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 48
(Los Angeles, 2011). A translation of Theodorets letters by Thomas Halton is forthcoming,
in the Library of Early Christianity series (Washington DC, Catholic University of America
Press).
120 On letters of recommendation in antiquity see in general C.-H. Kim, Form and Structure
of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation, Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation
Series 4 (Missoula, MT, 1972); S. Roda, Polifunzionalit della lettera commendaticia: Teoria e
prassi nellepistolario Simmachiano, in ed. F. Paschoud, Colloque Genevois sur Symmache sur
l occasion du mille six centime anniversaire du conflit de lautel de la Victoire (Paris, 1986),
62
chapter three
recommendation of three asylum-seekers give us a unique window onto

the plight of these (admittedly well-off and/or highly placed) displaced
persons, as well as an idea of how the advocacy process for asylum-seekers
worked in Late Antiquity. To be noted here is Theodorets modus operandi:
to the eminent persons to whom he writes his recommendation he couches
his support of the displaced persons who have sought his protection and
assistance in quite different terms, depending on their status and religion.
However, in all cases his support comes across as unequivocal.
In the case of the well-born asylum-seeker, Maximian, perhaps a member of a senatorial family, who was unable to recount the tragedy of his
hardships without piercing the hearts of his hearers and making them shed
tears, Theodoret had a letter from Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem (422458)
vouching for the veracity of Maximians story,121 indicating perhaps that the
asylum-seeker, on escaping from Libya, had gone first to Palestine.122 On the
basis of Juvenals letter of recommendation Theodoret in his turn was able
to write between 439 and 443 to the pagan sophist, Arius,123 asking him
to take care of Maximian, in the expectation that his friends willingness
to help an asylum-seeker would transcend religious boundaries. Theodoret
compares the campaign in Sicily during the Peloponnesian war, related by
Thucydides, with what has befallen Libya and Carthage in the wake of the
Vandal invasions, and requests Arius to provide Maximian with the hospitality of Alcinoos, as in Homers Odyssey. Here we see the network process
in action,124 with the bishop of Cyrrhus customizing his request to suit the
pagan recipient.
Sometimes the refugees arrived from Vandal North Africa in Syria as a
family unit, as in the case of Celestiacus, a formerly wealthy curialis from
Carthage, who escaped from the Vandals with his wife, children and house-
pp. 177207; H. Cotton, Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman
Empire, Beitrge zur klassischen Philologie 132 (Knigstein/Ts, 1991).
121 Ep. XXIII (XXII); ed., trans. Y. Azma, Thodoret de Cyr. Correspondance, vol. 1, SC 40bis
(Paris, 1982), p. 94. On Juvenal see E. Honigmann, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 5 (1950), pp. 209279. On Maximian see PLRE 2, s.v. Maximian 4, p. 739.
122 We might postulate that the route followed by Melania the Younger from Thagaste to
Jerusalem via Alexandria was a usual one from North Africa to the East. See Vita Melaniae
3435; ed., trans. D. Gorce, Vie de Sainte Mlanie, SC 90 (Paris, 1962), pp. 191195.
123 On Arius see PLRE 2, pp. 1718, where he is said to be a native of Cyrrhus but not to
live there.
124 A.M. Schors article, Theodoret on the School of Antioch: A Network Approach, JECS
15 (2007), pp. 517562, despite its promising title, deals basically not with the letters but with
Theodorets HE.
63
hold members, including servants.125 Since Carthage was predominantly

Latin-speaking, it may be wondered whether Celestiacus was bilingual or
learned Greek on the run. Using his well-developed networks,126 Theodoret
wrote no fewer than eight letters of recommendation on Celestiacus behalf.
The first of these, composed between 439 and 443, is to a high functionary
Apellio, presumably resident in the East and known only from this letter.127 Theodoret begins by saying that the suffering experienced by the
Carthaginians calls for a drama by Aeschylus or Sophocles, but in fact possibly surpasses their dramatic gifts. Appealing to Apellio as representative
of the imperial government, the bishop points out that the city of Carthage,
which the Roman empire had fought to secure, has become the toy of barbarians. In the face of the fragility of human affairs, says Theodoret, Celestiacus has borne his troubles bravely and deserves the assistance of Apellio
may the latter receive him hospitably in the manner of Abraham (cf. Gen
18:108). The second letter of recommendation on behalf of Celestiacus is
addressed to the same pagan sophist Arius to whom Theodoret had earlier appealed on behalf of Maximian.128 Here Theodoret appeals to Arius
higher learning and virtue and that of the school he leads. The sophist will
be well aware of the fickleness of fate: when he was affluent in Carthage,
Celestiacus opened his doors to strangers, never thinking that one day he
himself would have to throw himself on the mercy of strangers. Theodoret
urges Arius and his school to rival the hospitality of Alcinoos in receiving
and assisting the noble asylum-seeker. The next two letters in support of
Celestiacus and his family are to Bishop Domnus of Antioch (441/2449)129
and Bishop Theoctistus of Beroea in Syria Prima, west of Antioch and south
of Cyrrhus.130 To Domnus, Theodoret commends Celestiacus and his family,
urging his fellow-bishop to provide him a native land on foreign soil, and to
force those who are rich to help out someone who is of the same rank as
themselves. To Theoctistus, Theodoret writes that the aristocratic asylumseeker had come to him in Cyrrhus with letters attesting to the privileged
125 On this asylum-seeker see PLRE 2, pp. 278279 (evidence only on the basis of Theodorets letters).
126 On which see particularly Schor, Theodorets People, pp. 19130.
127 Ep. 29; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 8789. On Apellio see PLRE 2, p. 109.
128 Ep. 30; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 8689.
130 Ep. 32; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 9295. On Theoctistus see Azma, vol. 1, p. 34;
G. Fedalto, Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, vol. 2, Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus,
Hierosolymitanus (Padua, 1988), p. 693.
64
chapter three
class he had belonged to in Carthage. Over and above these recommendations Theodoret was able to observe and approve Celestiacus conduct in
person during the days he spent in Cyrrhus.131 The bishop of Cyrrhus petitions his fellow-bishop to take care of the curialis, who was once the ornament of the metropolitan city of Africa but now has neither city nor house,
not to mention the necessities of life. If the poor city of Cyrrhus can offer
solace to Celestiacus, so runs Theodorets argument, it is much more incumbent on the city of Beroea to do the same. Elsewhere the bishop of Cyrrhus
bemoans the poverty of his see;132 we may surmise that aiding a formerly
wealthy curialis and his entire household in their asylum would have been
an expensive exercise, one that Theodoret was obliged, even eager, to share
around. This will be corroborated by the contents of Letter 36 below.
The next two letters in Theodorets collection are addressed to imperial
officials. Letter 33 to Stasimus, comes and proteuon,133 opens in a similar vein
to Letter 29, stating that it would need the language of the dramatists to
express the plight of Celestiacus, who has been deprived of city, native land
and riches. Such a plight, warns Theodoret, could easily befall others, and
he urges Stasimus to introduce Celestiacus to people in public office and
to rich citizens in his circle, in order to achieve divine blessing for himself.
The following letter was sent to comes Patricius in c. 443.134 Singling out
generosity as the chief virtue of the comes, Theodoret explains the good
grace with which Celestiacus has accepted his lot and asks Patricius to
introduce the asylum-seeker to others who will also be generous to him.
Letters 35 and 36 were sent respectively to Irenaeus, metropolitan bishop
of the port city of Tyre (c. 445448),135 and Bishop Pompeianus of Emesa,
an inland town in Phoenicia Secunda.136 As he did with Patricius, Theodoret
singles out Irenaeus generosity as the virtue that impels him to approach
him on Celestiacus behalf. As in previous letters too he invokes the fickleness of fate that has reduced a mega-wealthy man to wandering about in a
foreign land looking for support, and asks Irenaeus to introduce Celestiacus
131
Ep. 35; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 9699.

See e.g. Ep. 42; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 106113.
133 Ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 9497. On Stasimus, who was probably retired, see PLRE 2,
p. 1028. The letter was composed between 439 and 443.
134 According to PLRE 2, p. 838, s.v. Patricius 6, there is no suggestion that Patricius was
comes Orientis.
135 Ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 9699. On Irenaeus, a former comes Orientis, see PLRE 2,
p. 624, s.v. Irenaeus 2.
136 Ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 98101. On the bishop himself see Fedalto, Hierarchia, vol. 2,
p. 736.
132
65
to the rich in his city so that the latter may support his wife, children and servants. In his appeal to Pompeianus for support Theodoret mentions that the
paucity of the resources of the see of Emesa will be overcome by its bishops
generosity, such that in his radically reduced circumstances the noble Celestiacus and his household will be assisted by the richest among the citizens of
Emesa. Again it seems as if the plight of Celestiacus is being shared around;
there is no talk of returning him to his homeland or arranging safe passage.
Two letters survive which Theodoret wrote to Bishop Ibas of Edessa137
and Ibas cousin, Bishop Sophronius of Constantina in Osrohene (under
the aegis of the metropolitan of Edessa), on behalf of the Libyan bishop
Cyprian.138 This ecclesiastic, having escaped the Vandals, made his way to
Galatia, the territory around modern-day Ankara in Turkey. Eusebius, a
bishop of Galatia and a friend of Theodoret, had given Cyprian a letter of
recommendation, which he showed to Theodoret.139 The bishop of Cyrrhus
in his turn asks Sophronius to write a letter of recommendation for Cyprian,
enabling him to travel further to other ports,140 presumably with a view of
returning to Libya. It is unclear why Cyprian has to travel so far inland in
order to return by sea to his native land.
Our final example of Theodorets crisis management in the face of population displacement concerns the well-born Libyan girl, Maria, who, while
fleeing the Vandals, was captured and enslaved by them.141 Some traders who
had bought her from the barbarians on-sold Maria and her servant-girl to
Syrians, but she was ransomed by some good-hearted soldiers who heard
of her noble birth and were impressed with the demeanour of her servant.
When she arrived in Cyrrhus, Theodoret was absent, but on his return he
heard about the whole episode and confided Maria to the care of a deacon. Ten months later, when she was told that her father was alive and
living in the West, Maria asked Theodoret for a letter of recommendation
to the bishop of the port city of Aigiai on her homeward journey. (Perhaps
this was also the escape route that Bishop Cyprian availed himself of.) This
137 On Ibas and his works see G.G. Blum, Rabbula von Edessa, der Christ, der Bischof, der
Theologe, CSCO, Subsidia 34 (Louvain, 1969), pp. 196203; C. Rammelt, Ibas von Edessa.
Rekonstruktion einer Biographie und dogmatischen Position zwischen den Fronten, Arbeiten
zur Kirchengeschichte 106 (Berlin, New York, 2008).
138 Epp. 52 and 53; ed., trans. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 128131 and 130131, respectively. On
Sophronius (c. 445451) see Fedalto, Hierarchia, vol. 2, p. 814.
141 On Maria see PLRE 2, s.v. Maria 2, pp. 720721; on her father Eudaimon, see PLRE 2,
p. 406, s.v. Eudaimon 3.
66
chapter three
Theodoret did, explaining that the time was opportune because of a fair in
that city where many sea-faring merchants would be present,142 and asking
Bishop Eustathius to put her into the care of sailors, pilots and traders who
would take her home safely.143
We observe that all of the displaced persons immortalized in Theodorets
correspondence were either rich (or formerly so), aristocratic, or well-placed
in the church. Thus they had access to sophisticated and powerful social
networks. In this crisis we do not find the bishop interceding for little
people, presumably because they did not have enough money to escape
from Africa in the first place.
Case-Study 5. Severus of Antioch (512518)
Let us turn now to Severus, patriarch of Antioch in Syria from 512518, who
departed from his see in 518 after the restoration of Chalcedon by Justin I in
518.144 The sources are not clear on the immediate reason for Severus hasty
departure from Antioch: he was summoned to Constantinople to be tried
for heresy or to have his tongue cut out.145 However, before a sentence of
exile could be imposed upon him he was able to take ship for Alexandria on
29 September 518,146 and thus began his life as a refugee and asylum-seeker.
No fewer than 55 bishops were expelled from the Antiochene patriarchate
in the next years,147 many of them, like Severus, seeking refuge in antiChalcedonian Egypt from imperial hostility and persecution. For the next
twenty years until his death in 538, Severus lived in hiding in Egypt, although
he still administered his flock continuously by letter. These people were
142 On the function and opportunities of fairs in antiquity see L. de Ligt, Fairs and Markets
in the Roman Empire. Economic and Social Aspects of Periodic Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society
(Amsterdam, 1993), pp. 7075, 126128.
144 On the Chalcedonian restoration see Menze, Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church.
On Severus the classic work is that of J. Lebon, Le monophysisme svrien. tude historique,
littraire et thologique (Louvain, 1909; repr. New York, 1978), revised in La christologie du
monophysisme svrien, in eds. Grillmeier, Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, pp. 425
580; Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch; Alpi, La Route royale. The letters of Severus, almost
all of which survive in Syriac translations, are found in ed., trans. Brooks, Select Letters; idem,
A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch. For incidental letters outside these collections see
Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch, p. 186.
145 On the details see Honigmann, vques et vchs, pp. 142143.
146 See J. Maspero, Histoire des patriarches d Alexandrie depuis la mort de lempereur Anastase jusqu la rconciliation des glises jacobites (518646), Bibliothque de lcole des Hautes
tudes 237 (Paris, 1923), pp. 7071.
147 See Honigmann, vques et vchs, p. 87.
67
mostly monks, nuns and clergy who had been displaced and sought asylum
in eastern Syria and Arabiain other words, they were the victims of mass
dispersion caused by ecclesiastical crises. Himself a victim of these crises,
Severus tells us that nobody knew where he was living except those who
brought him the necessities of life;148 he was forever on the move, sometimes
changing his abode when some news reached him;149 and even for those who
did know where he was, access appears to have been possible only through
certain officials.150 Despite his isolation, however, the sophisticated networks
which he had established even before his patriarchate ensured that he was
kept informed of events and that he could be reached by letter.
During his patriarchate itself (512518), Severus had had to struggle with
low numbers of committed anti-Chalcedonian clergy; in his long asylum his
concern must have been that the religious crises of the time prevented his
displaced people in the diaspora from having canonically ordained priests
or bishops. The persecutions waged against his people by subsequent Chalcedonian patriarchs of Antioch would have exacerbated the crisis.151 Apart
from encouraging his flock and urging them to maintain their opposition
to the Council of Chalcedon, Severus had a further strategy in his crisis
management, namely writing polemical works against the Chalcedonians.
One of these enemies was John the Grammarian. Severus work against
the neo-Chalcedonian stance of John was not published until 519,152 when
Severus was already in refuge, and he explains that he was forced to compose the introduction to the work in such a way that it looked as if he was
still patriarch of Antioch, not a condemned non-person writing from his
place of asylum.153 In the following passage from a letter, Severus describes
the difficulties of implementing this strategy without access to a library but
also its importance for overturning what had been done at the Council of
451:
It was a very difficult task and needed a great store of books, and it was so to
speak difficult for me to correct, because I am moving from place to place,
and I have not everywhere at hand fitting testimonies and demonstrations
from the Scriptures. For I thought it right to meet not only the lamentable
148
149
150
151
Select Letters 5.12; Brooks, vol. 1 (text), pp. 382383; vol. 2 (trans.), p. 339.
Select Letters 5.12; Brooks, vol. 1 (text), p. 384; vol. 2 (trans.), p. 341.
Select Letters 8.5; Brooks, vol. 1 (text), p. 469; vol. 2 (trans.), p. 415.
See Allen, Episcopal Succession in Antioch, in eds. Leemans et al., Episcopal Elections,
p. 28.
152 See Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum; ed., trans. J. Lebon, CSCO 93
(text), 94 (trans.) (Louvain, 1933); CSCO 101 (text), 102 (trans.) (Louvain, 1938).
153 Ep. 34; ed., trans. Brooks, PO 12/2, p. 276.
68
chapter three
babblings of the grammarian, but also the whole web of impiety contained in
what was defined and done by way of innovation at Chalcedon 154
This is an example of the itinerant episcopal asylum-seeker using written

propaganda to strengthen his case. The same holds true for Severus polemical works against the exaggerated anti-Chalcedonian Sergius,155 which he
was able to complete only from Egypt, and his engagement with his fellowasylum-seeker, Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus.156
We have various examples of Severus letters of consolation written from
his asylum. In one case he writes to the anti-Chalcedonian monks of the
East who were driven by imperial force from their monasteries after 520, two
years after Severus himself went into hiding in Egypt.157 He tries to console
and instruct them at the same time. To the female monastics, also forced to
flee, he writes:
Sustain yourselves on the hope of the future life, and look for a reward to be
added to the now existing troubles, and ask the God of all not to allow us to be
tried beyond what we can bear, but with the trial to give also a way of escape,
that we may be able to endure.158
Elsewhere in his letters from banishment he relates to John and John, his two
locum tenentes in Antioch, the persecution and expulsion of anti-Chalcedonians in Isauria, including monks, clergy and laypeople.159 He remarks
that a time of persecution more particularly invites us to be more than
ordinarily mild, and to gather together the scattered limbs of the church,
and to block the exits of their unreasonable schisms.160
Like Nestorius long sojourn in the Great Oasis, Severus protracted asylum in various places in Egypt was eventful. On Justinians accession in 527
the new emperor made it his policy to try to reconcile supporters and oppo-
154
Ep. 34; ed. Brooks, PO 12/2, p. 276. Cf. Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch, pp. 2627.
Epistulae mutuae; ed., trans. J. Lebon, CSCO 119 (text), 120 (trans.) (Louvain, 1949);
ed., trans., I.R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of Antioch and Sergius the
Monophysite (Norwich, 1988); repr. as The Correspondence of Severus and Sergius, Texts from
Christian Late Antiquity 11 (Piscataway, NJ, 2011).
156 See R. Hespel, ed., trans., Svre d Antioche. La polmique antijulianiste 1, CSCO 244/245
(Louvain, 1964); 2A, CSCO 295/296 (Louvain, 1968); 2B, CSCO 301/302 (Louvain, 1969); 3,
CSCO 318/319 (Louvain, 1971). On Julian see R. Draguet, Julien dHalicarnasse et sa controverse avec Svre d Antioche sur l incorruptibilit du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924), pp. 49;
Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 79128.
157 Ep. 35; PO 12/2, pp. 279290; trans. Brooks.
158 Ep. 61; PO 12/2, pp. 340342 at p. 342; trans. Brooks.
159 Select Letters 1.52; Brooks, vol. 1 (text), p. 165; vol. 2 (trans.), p. 149.
160 Select Letters 1.53; Brooks, vol. 1 (text), p. 170; vol. 2 (trans.), p. 153.
155
69
nents of Chalcedon. By c. 530 persecution of anti-Chalcedonians had ceased

and Justinian was planning conversations between the two rival groups,
each being represented by six bishops. Because the emperor realized that
the presence of Severus was essential for the success of the talks, he was
invited to go to Constantinople, but in a letter he declined on grounds of
age.161 The conversations, which took place in Constantinople in 532, were
inconclusive.162 Finally in 534 or 535163 Severus did go to Constantinople,
where he was welcomed by Empress Theodora, who was sympathetic to
non-Chalcedonians. However, it was only a matter of time before the Chalcedonian alliance between Emperor Justinian and Pope Agapitus asserted
its ascendancy, and in MayJune 536 Severus was condemned by the Home
Synod. This decision was ratified by an imperial edict later in the same
year, banishing Severus and condemning his works to the flames.164 With
Theodoras help Severus fled once more to Egypt,165 where he lived in various places in the desert, including Kellia, south of Alexandria,166 until his
death on 8 February 538.
161 Ps. Zachariah Rhetor, HE 9.16; ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae
rhetori vulgo adscripta, CSCO 84, Scr. Syr. 39 (Louvain, 1921), pp. 123131 (text); CSCO 88, Scr.
Syr. 42 (Louvain, 1965), pp. 8590 (trans.). See now the new English trans. with notes, The
Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor. Church and War in Late Antiquity, ed. G. Greatrex, trans.
R.R. Phenix, C.B. Horn, with contributions by S.P. Brock, W. Witakowski, TTH 55 (Liverpool
2011), pp. 354361.
162 Detailed records of these survive: see Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 232240.
163 On the date see Greatrex et al., The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, p. 354 n. 224.
The journey of Severus to Constantinople is related by Ps. Zachariah, HE 9.19; Brooks, CSCO
84, p. 135 (text); CSCO 88, p. 93 (trans.). Trans., notes in Greatrex et al., p. 367.
164 See further Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 272273.
165 See the details of his departure given in his letter: Ps. Zachariah, HE 9.20; ed. Brooks,
CSCO 84, pp. 138140 (text); CSCO 88, pp. 9596 (trans.). Trans. with notes in Greatrex et al.,
pp. 372373.
166 John of Beith Aphthonia, Vie de Svre; ed., trans. M.-A. Kugener, PO 2/3 (Paris, 1907),
pp. 300, 302.
chapter four
NATURAL DISASTERS
Introduction
Populations in both the East and West during the fifth and sixth centuries
were visited by a series of natural disasters, including earthquakes, extreme
heat and cold, famine, drought, fire, hail, pests, floods, a dust-veil event,
tsunamis and plague. Many of these catastrophes were intertwined: for
example, earthquakes and food-shortages were often followed by epidemics
and drought/fire/floods by famine. Here we are not concerned with the
historical geography of Late Antiquity per se but rather with the extent of
episcopal responses to natural disasters as revealed in surviving letters.1
Similarly our brief is not to investigate the scholarly consensus about characteristics or changes in the late-antique climate,2 but to assess as far as
the evidence allows the way in which bishops managed natural crises. As
always we are at the mercy of our sources, for references to weather events
derive mostly from histories, chronicles or hagiographical works, the historical records being to a considerable degree determined by their authors
interest in military operations, and the hagiographical by weather miracles,
particularly rain and hail. It is also the case that most of the surviving evidence is local and sporadic, with the exception of the bubonic pandemic of
the sixth century. We can note too that from the end of the fifth century
onwards many natural phenomena were interpreted in an eschatological
framework because Christians calculated that the period of 6000 years from
the creation of the world to the advent of the anti-Christ came to an end
in c. 500. Apocalyptic predictions in the Gospels of hunger, epidemics and
war as presages of the end of time seemed to fit like a glove.3 This in turn
1 The literature on the historical geography of the eastern empire is particularly extensive. See Telelis, Weather and Climate, p. 432 n. 1.
2 On which see Telelis, Weather and Climate, p. 436 with n. 13. Stathakopoulos, Famine
and Pestilence, p. 166, remarks that it is generally accepted that a cold, humid climatic weather
event hit Europe and the Mediterranean from c. 500, and lasted to between 850 and 1000.
3 See in particular P. Magdalino, The History of the Future and its Uses: Prophecy, Policy and Propaganda, in eds. R. Beaton, C. Rouch, The Making of Byzantine History. Studies
Dedicated to Donald M. Nicol, Centre for Hellenic Studies, Kings College London Publications
72
chapter four
suggests that the eschatological interpretation of natural disasters and the

management of such crises would prima facie have provided bishops with
considerable challenges. In this chapter, as far as the surviving evidence
allows, we shall see how they acquitted themselves.
For the period in which we are engaged in this volume we have recently
been furnished with advanced scholarly tools that catalogue many natural
disasters. For earthquakes we consult the work of E. Guidoboni and her
collaborators,4 and for famine and plague, the survey of D. Stathakopoulos.5
M. Meier has provided a useful annotated bibliography of catastrophes in
the East from 500 to 565,6 and I. Telelis has dealt at length with weather and
climate change in Byzantium.7 Despite their usefulness, however, because
of the diversity, bulk and complexity of the data and problems with dating,
none of these reference works can be regarded as unfailingly accurate or
complete. The dearth of evidence from episcopal correspondence for these
otherwise amply documented natural disasters is also striking, and as far as
possible we shall try to account for it. We also mention here the increasing
attention paid by twentieth- and twenty-first century scholars to natural
disasters and climate change in general, from, for example, archaeological,
religious, historical, literary, sociological, psychological, scientific, medical
and legal perspectives.8
Earthquakes
As the catalogue of Guidoboni and associates demonstrates, earthquakes
were frequent and severe particularly in the East during the fifth and sixth
1 (Aldershot, UK, Brookfield, VT, 1993), pp. 334; W. Brandes, Anastasios ho dikoros: Endzeiterwartung und Kaiserkritik in Byzanz um 500 n. Chr., Byzantinische Zeitschrift 90 (1997),
pp. 2464; Av. Cameron, Remaking the Past, in eds. G. Bowersock, P. Brown, O. Grabar,
Late Antiquity. A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, MA, 1999), pp. 120. Cf. H.U. Wiemer, Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln in der rmischen Kaiserzeit (Berlin, New York,
2006), p. 261; Telelis, Weather and Climate, p. 442 with n. 29 (lit.).
4 See Guidoboni, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes.
5 Famine and Pestilence. Of approximately 125 entries for the fifth and sixth centuries in
this survey, only nrs. 41, 52, 70, 71 and 77 pertain to episcopal letters.
6 Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontingenzerfarhung und Kontingenzbewltigung im 6.
Jahrhundert n. Chr., Hypomnemata 147 (Gttingen, 2003).
7 . See also his Weather and Climate. See too Koder, Climate
Change in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries?, pp. 270278.
8 Just as one example among many see the various contributions in eds. W. Kinzig,
T. Rheindorf, Katastrophenund die Antworten der Religionen, Studien des Bonner Zentrums
fr Religion und Gesellschaft 7 (Wrzburg, 2011), esp. the editors introduction at pp. 717.
natural disasters
73
centuries, thanks to the normal activity of the tectonic plates located in

the region. During this period, no fewer than sixty-seven occurrences are
recorded in the sources, mostly in chronicles, histories and hagiography,
among which are prominent the chronicles/chronographies of Marcellinus
comes,9 Ps. Joshua the Stylite,10 and John Malalas;11 the church histories of
Zachariah Scholasticus12 and Evagrius Scholasticus;13 the secular historians
Procopius and Agathias;14 the biography of Simeon the Stylite the Younger;15
later writers of the Byzantine period like Theophanes, Cedrenus, Zonaras
and Michael the Syrian, who often preserve excellent older sources that
are otherwise lost; and occasional epigraphic evidence. There are only two
pieces of evidence from what we might call an episcopal letter, namely those
of Synesius of Cyrene and Severus of Antioch, which will be treated below.
The evidence from sources for the western part of the empire is sparse in
comparison, consisting mostly of the Libri Pontificales of Rome and Ravenna.
What is also arresting is that the evidence provided for the occurrence of
earthquakes owes very little to episcopal correspondence, which is limited,
occasional, and sometimes defies interpretation.
We know from cumulative evidence from the (mostly historical) sources
that Constantinople suffered severely from earthquakes in 402, 403, 412, 417,
423, 437, 442 (?), 447, 477/8, 525, 531/2, 533, 542, 546, 548, 554, 557 and 583.16
9 Ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA 11 (Berlin, 1894); trans. B. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus.
A Translation and Commentary, Byzantina Australiensia 7 (Sydney, 1995).
10 In incerti auctoris Chronicon pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, ed., trans. J.-B. Chabot,
CSCO 91, Scr. Syr. 43 (text), 104, Scr. Syr. 53 (trans.) (Paris, Louvain, 1933); Eng. trans. with notes,
introduction, F.R. Trombley, J.W. Watt, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, TTH 32
(Liverpool, 2000).
11 Ed. L. Dindorf, Malalas Chronographia (Bonn, 1831); ed. J. Thurn, Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae 35 (Berlin, New York, 2000); trans. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, R. Scott, The
Chronicle of John Malalas, Byzantina Australiensia 4 (Melbourne, 1986).
12 HE, ed., trans. E.W. Brooks; trans. Greatrex.
13 Evagrius Scholasticus, HE; eds. Bidez, Parmentier; trans. Whitby.
14 Procopius, Bella, ed. J. Haury, rev. G. Wirth, (Leipzig, 1963); ed., trans. H.B. Dewing, Loeb
Classical Library (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1935). Agathias, Historiarum libri quinque; ed.
R. Keydell, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 2 (Berlin, 1967); trans. J.D. Frendo, Agathias,
The Histories, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 2A, Series Berolinensis (Berlin, New York,
1975).
15 Ed., trans. P. Van den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Symon Stylite le Jeune (521592), Subsidia
Hagiographica 32 (Brussels, 19621970).
16 For the following dates see Guidoboni et al., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes, according to year. Cf. G. Downey, Earthquakes at Constantinople and Vicinity, A.D. 3241454,
Speculum 30 (1955), pp. 596600; W. Mayer, P. Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch 300
638 CE, LAHR 5 (Leuven, 2012), pp. 262277.
74
chapter four
Syrian Antioch was destroyed by earthquake in 526, again in 528, and had
to withstand at least another five seismic episodes during the rest of the
sixth century (551, 557, 560/1, 577 [581?] and 588). Western cities were not
exempt, Rome, for example, experiencing earthquakes in 408, 443, c. 484 (or
508), and Ravenna in 429, 443, 467 and possibly 501 and/or 502. The repeated
loss of life and damage to buildings, churches, baths and city walls must
have impacted greatly on the lives of citizens, and required, one would have
thought, some serious explanation of theodicy from their bishops. With
regard to the devastation of Antioch in 528, the church historian Evagrius
writes:
[A] quaking and shaking struck the city and overturned and levelled almost
all of it. Fire too followed these, as if apportioning the disaster with them.
For what the former did not lay low the fire encompassed, burnt to ashes and
incinerated And indeed Euphrasius [the patriarch] also was engulfed in the
ruins and died, another disaster for the city, so that there was no one to take
provision for its needs.17
After the disaster some people witnessed the appearance of a cross in the
sky, and consequently part of the mountain above the city was renamed
Stavrin (cross).18 Thirty months later, after another destructive earthquake
had undone the restoration work, the city was renamed Theoupolis, or city
of God. Although both these earthquakes are unequivocally and extensively
attested in many ancient sources and feature in Guidobonis catalogue,19 to
our knowledge there is not a single episcopal letter that deals with either
tragedy. This is perhaps all the more surprising since, as Sonnabend argues,
even for such a seismically challenged city as Antioch, the events of 526 were
horrendous.20 It is surprising in another sense, for Ephrem of Amida, the
man who was comes Orientis at the time of the first disaster and responsible
for the reconstruction of the city, was elected patriarch by a grateful citizenry
in 526/7 and remained in that office until his death in 544.21 During his
17
HE 4.5; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, pp. 155156; trans. Whitby, pp. 203204.
Malalas, Chronographia; ed. Dindorf, p. 466, 1622.
19 Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes, nrs. 203, 206.
20 H. Sonnabend, Naturkatastrophen in der Antike. WahrnehmungDeutungManagement
(Stuttgart, Weimar, 1999), p. 33. Guidoboni et al., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes (nr. 183),
p. 299, calculates that a destructive earthquake occurred roughly every fifty-seven to sixty
years.
21 See the classic biography of Ephrem by J. Lebon, Ephrem dAmid, patriarche dAntioche, 526544, in Mlanges d histoire offerts Charles Moeller loccasion de son jubil de
50 annes de professorat l Universit de Louvain 18631913, vol. 1, Antiquit et Moyen ge,
Universit de Louvain receuil de travaux 40 (Louvain, Paris, 1914), pp. 197214.
18
natural disasters
75
tenure he rebuilt the city a second time, fled before the Persian invasion
in 540, perhaps negotiated with the invaders to save the Great Church, and
with his people withstood the plague in 542. During all this time he was
also heavily involved in christological debate.22 While in the ninth century
Photius knew of fourteen of Ephrems letters, none of them has survived,23
but we may surmise that numerous other letters from such a high-profile
and active imperial functionary, patriarch and theologian, some of them
perhaps referring to natural disasters that he faced, have also unfortunately
perished.
With regard to discerning the worth of what does survive of episcopal
correspondence on the subject of earthquakes, let us first assess the case of
Synesius, bishop of Cyrene from (probably) February 411 to his early death
in 413, whom we shall also adduce when we deal with food-shortages and
famine, below. We have three letters in Synesius surviving corpus that deal
ostensibly with earthquakes, namely, Letters 42, 61 and 66.24 The first and
third of these are concerned with the alleged outrages perpetrated by the
governor of Pentapolis, Andronicus, a native of the region, whom Synesius portrays as violent, lawless and rapacious.25 In Letter 42 Andronicus
is denounced as the ultimate plague of Pentapolis, after the region had
endured earthquake, a plague of locusts, food-shortage, fire and war. All
these natural disasters are presented as having occurred within recent memory. However, as we shall also suggest under the topic of food-shortages
where this same passage is adduced, it is probably rather the case that
Andronicus is meant to be damned by association with these catastrophes
of uncertain date. The evidence of earthquake in Letter 66 about the fortification of Hydrax in the Pentapolis having been ruined by earthquake is
similarly of doubtful value, because Synesius is writing to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, about the pressing woes of his diocese. It seems impossible to pinpoint the date of this earthquake, although scholars have tried
to do so from historical and epigraphical perspectives.26 Letter 61 recounts
22 See further T. Hainthaler in A. Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/3.
Die Kirchen von Jerusalem und Antiochien nach 451 bis 600, ed. T. Hainthaler (Freiburg, 2002),
pp. 357373.
23 See CPG 6908 for Photius list.
24 For Synesius letters we have used Garzya, ed., Roques, trans., Synsios de Cyrne; Ep. 42
in vol. 2, pp. 5457, Ep. 61 in vol. 2, pp. 7678, Ep. 66 in vol. 3, pp. 173186.
25 For the conflict between Synesius and Andronicus, and its effects see P. Allen, Brushes
with the Imperium: Letters of Synesius of Cyrene and Augustine of Hippo on Crisis, in eds.
Nathan, Garland, Basileia: Essays, pp. 4553 with lit. review.
26 D. Roques, Synsios de Cyrne et la Cyrnaque du Bas-Empire, tudes dantiquits
76
chapter four
the circumstances in which Synesius fled Constantinople during an earthquake, probably that of 402:
God shook the earth several times per day, and the people, most of them prostrate, addressed him with supplications because the ground was trembling.
For my part, in this situation thinking that the sea was safer than land, I hurried down to the harbour 27
This earthquake and others about the same time are well attested in the
sources, although the chronology is not firm.28 In any case, Synesius testimony dates from before his episcopal election and is therefore properly
speaking not pertinent to our enquiry.
We turn now to an administrative letter written probably 519/20 by the
exiled Severus of Antioch to his locum tenentes, John and John, both of whom
are called presbyters and archimandrites, where we read the following passage:
Let your sanctities know that there was also an earthquake here on the fourteenth of October; a thing which in general rarely happens in the regions of
Egypt; and no ordinary earthquake, but violent enough to shake buildings and
cause them to tremble for a long space of time, passing over the small ones
only, while everyone so to speak felt it. In certain cities of Egypt, especially in
Anthrib, a pestilence and plague has also been reported to have occurred.29
This throw-away comment is not unusual in seeming to connect earthquake

with epidemic; however, despite its value as one of the very few references
to earthquakes in episcopal letters, it has not been picked up either by
Guidoboni et al. in their catalogue of earthquakes or by Stathakopoulos
in his survey of epidemics. There is no other mention of earthquakes in
Severus surviving correspondence.
africaines (Paris, 1987), pp. 4552 (followed by Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 315), dates the disaster
to 365. A painted inscription in Greek published by D. Comparetti, Iscrizione cristiana di
Cirene, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni in Oriente 1 (1914),
pp. 161167 and dated by him to 394 is reproduced in Guidoboni et al. (nr. 162), who, however,
are reluctant to link it with either date because of insufficient evidence.
27 Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 77, 1014. Our translation.
28 See the discussion in Guidoboni et al., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes, nr. 163, pp.
282283.
29 Select Letters 5.12; ed., trans. Brooks, vol. 1, pp. 383384, (text), vol. 2, p. 340 (trans.).
Anthrib is the bishopric of Athrib(is) or Atrib, close to the Nile, north of Giza, since Severus
was most likely in Lower Egypt at this stage. See R. Stewart, Atrib, in ed. A.S. Atiya, The Coptic
Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (New York, 1991), p. 307. On Severus in exile see Allen, Hayward, Severus
of Antioch, pp. 2530; see further bibliography pertaining to the exile in Youssef, Severus of
Antioch in Scetis, esp. pp. 158163.
natural disasters
77
By way of contrast, in his hymns Severus is forthcoming about earthquakes and their liturgical commemoration.30 In several of his hymns this
same letter-writer deals with recent crises caused by natural disasters.31 As
we have said, Antioch was particularly acquainted with the phenomenon of
earthquakes. Hymn 256III,32 which was composed while the city of Antioch was still in the grip of the earthquake of 7 September 513, opens with
a citation of Psalm 60:4: You have shaken the earth and opened it, and proceeds with a plea that God not condemn the Antiochenes to death by earthquake as a punishment for their sins. This earthquake is not attested in any
other surviving source.33 Hymn 257IIVI34 deals similarly with the ongoing
crisis of an earthquake, attributed to divine chastisement, which crisis may
well be identical with that described in the previous hymn. Hymn 258III
V,35 on the other hand, refers to a past crisis when a merciful God delivered
the people from an earthquake. The next hymn in the collection, Hymn
259IVIII,36 refers to both deliverance from dire troubles and impending
divine wrath, perhaps indicating an intermediate state between two crises,
while the following piece, Hymn 260VVIII,37 described in the manuscripts
as Another in commemoration of the same terrors, commemorates an
earthquake that occurred on the Feast of the Holy Cross, 14 September,
30 On what follows see P. Allen, Stage-Managing Crisis: Bishops Liturgical Responses to

Crisis (4th6th Centuries), in eds. Sim, Allen, Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts, pp. 159172
at pp. 167168.
31 On Severus and his hymns see John of Beith Aphthonia, Vita Severi; ed., trans. M.A. Kugener, Vie de Svre, PO 2/3 (Paris, 1907), pp. 244255. Severus of Antioch, Hymns (CPG
7072); ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus and Others in the Syriac Version of Paul of
Edessa as Revised by James of Edessa, PO 6/1 (Paris, 1909), pp. 1179, and 7/5, 2nd ed. (Turnhout,
1981), pp. 593802. See further Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch, pp. 5455; Alpi, La route
royale, pp. 160161. The composition of the collection in which Severus hymns survive is
problematical. See further C. Burris, L. Van Rompay, Some Further Notes on Thecla in Syriac
Christianity, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 6/2 (2003), pp. 337342, online at: http://www
.bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volume-index/155.html (accessed 30 June, 2012). On
the genre of the hymn see M. Lattke, Hymnus. Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken
Hymnologie, Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 19 (Freiburg, Gttingen, 1991), pp. 358
359 on Severus. For liturgical commemoration of earlier earthquakes in Constantinople
see B. Croke, Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes and Their Liturgical Commemoration,
Byzantion 51 (1981), pp. 122147.
32 PO 7/5, p. 705.
33 See the silence in Guidoboni et al., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes, ad loc.
34 PO 7/5, pp. 706707.
35 PO 7/5, p. 707.
36 PO 7/5, p. 708.
37 PO 7/5, pp. 708709.
78
chapter four
and alludes to after-shocks which are apparently ongoing (remember thy

clemency and thy mercy, Lord; and remove from us the threat of wrath
and anger that is threatening and hanging over us). If we link this Hymn
with Severus Homily 31, delivered on 14 September 513, where the patriarch
refers to an earthquake that old people in the congregation can remember,38 then it is clear that the homilist is referring to the particularly severe
seismic crisis that occurred in Antioch in the night from 1314 September
458 and is well attested in the sources.39 Thus Severus Hymn 260VVIII,
while harking back to a much more critical earthquake in Antiochs history, has an apotropaic function with regard to the current after-shocks of
the earthquake of 513. According to its title in the manuscripts, Hymn 261
VIIII, the next piece in the collection,40 commemorates the same ancient
earthquakes. The congregation sings: We keep the commemoration of the
ancient chastisement of the earthquake, in order that we may not by forgetting God fall into a depth of evil deeds. This hymn, we may assume, is a
liturgical enshrinement of the seismic crisis some sixty years earlier. Severus
hymns are valuable examples of the liturgical processing of the earthquake
of 513 and its after-shocks, although this calamity was apparently not as devastating as the earthquake of 458 or those of 526 and 528; while these are
well attested in the sources, no liturgical commemoration of these crises
survives.41
We have devoted some space here to Severus hymns in order to suggest
that in the dichotomy between the information conveyed in episcopal letters and that transmitted in, for example, hymns, literary genres may have
played a role in the amount of information that has come down to us about
earthquakes and other natural disasters in Christian antiquity. In liturgical
texts such as the hymns of Severus the sin-and-punishment syndrome is
both brought to the fore and mitigated, which capacity probably does not
pertain to the letter-writing genre per se. We see the same trend in Romanos
Melodos commemorations of the earthquakes and fires in the early part
of Justinians reign, with Romanos framing these as an instance when wise
intervention from the good emperor who had saved his people, and twenty
years later as evidence for the last days of the Apocalypse being at hand, with
38
PO 36/4, pp. 640641.

See Guidoboni et al., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes (nr. 183), pp. 296300; Alpi, La
route royale, vol. 1, p. 160.
40 PO 7/5, pp. 709710.
41 Guidoboni et al., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes, pp. 314321 and pp. 323325, respectively.
39
natural disasters
79
the anti-Christ represented as an emperor, perhaps Justininan.42 Once again,

however, we may be at the mercy of our sources in that such a small proportion of episcopal letters from this period survives, as the case of Ephrem of
Amida illustrates graphically. We shall return to this problematic in the conclusion to the present chapter.
Food-Shortages and Famine43
The occurrences of famine as natural disasters are more difficult to gauge
because many food-shortages were caused by human agency. As an example
we can cite the famine that is reported by Zosimus and two church historians as occurring in Rome between the end of 409 and spring of the following
year, caused by Heraclianus, the comes Africae, who prevented provisions of
oil and grain from leaving African ports for Rome.44 As prefect of the city
of Rome in 468 before his election to the episcopate of Clermont-Ferrand,
Sidonius Apollinaris took pre-emptive action against a starving crowd by
commandeering the supplies of five ships at Ostia. The shortage was probably caused by the Vandal war in Africa.45 Likewise the fire and resultant
famine mentioned in one of the later letters of Sidonius, where as bishop
of Clermont-Ferrand he refers to starvation caused by the destruction of
crops by firea situation alleviated at the private expense of his addressee,
Bishop Patiens of Lyoncould be a natural disaster, but equally a consequence of the frequent Gothic incursions around Clermont-Ferrand in the
470s.46 Similarly, the famine, followed by epidemic (possibly, as often, a consequence of eating bad food), that occurred in Rome in the summer of 537
was the result of the siege of the city by the Goths, like the famine and
42 R. Scott, Justinians New Age and the Second Coming, in R. Scott, Byzantine Chronicles
and the Sixth Century, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Farnham, 2012), XIX, pp. 122, at
pp. 1319.
43 For the primary sources see under Chapter 4, Earthquakes, above.
44 Zosimus, Hist. nov. 6.11; Philostorgius, HE 12.3; Sozomen, HE 9.8.78. See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 224225 (nr. 44). In addition to Stathakopoulos work on this
topic see P. Garnsey, Famine and Food in the Graeco-Roman World. Responses to Risk and Crisis
(Cambridge, 1988); J. Durliat, De la ville antique la ville byzantine. Le problme des subsistances, Collection de l cole franaise de Rome 136 (Rome, 1990); Holman, The Hungry are
Dying.
45 Ep. 1.10; ed., trans. Anderson vol. 1, pp. 392393. Cf. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 243244 (nr. 71).
46 Ep. 6.12; ed., trans. Anderson, vol. 2, p. 281. Not mentioned in Stathakopoulos, Famine
and Pestilence.
80
chapter four
epidemics in Emilia Romagna, the Marche and Tuscany (spring-summer

539), which were caused by the fact that agriculture had been abandoned
because of warfare with the Goths.47 Instances of food-shortages caused by
human agency could be multiplied ad libitum in situations of siege.48
Other scenarios present themselves for interpretation. In July or August
411 the curialis Synesius, bishop of Cyrene in Pentapolis, wrote to the sophist,
philosopher, high official and savant Troilus a letter in which he asked the
highest authorities to safeguard the law in his jurisdiction. The bishop dwells
on the pitiable situation of Pentapolis, where famine, barbarian incursions,
and the corruption of local officials are in evidence.49 A close look at Synesius
and his circumstances, however, reveals that in this year he was involved
in a bitter conflict with the local governor Andronicus; we may suspect,
then, that all the other miseries that he lays before Troilus in this letter are
meant to bolster his case against Andronicus. Thus the famine, while real,
may have been caused by the incursions of the local tribes, about which
Synesius complains several times in his correspondence, or else it is adduced
simply as another avenue of attack against Andronicus,50 in which the sinand-punishment syndrome is adduced or hinted at.51 As in other examples
of the polemical use of natural disasters, this avenue of attack has, of course,
eschatological implications.
Yet other cases demanding interpretation are the letters of Bishops John
of Antioch and Firmus of Caesarea (Cappadocia). The communication from
John and his synod, dating from 431 and addressed to the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, gives his reasons for arriving late at the Council
of Ephesus: he was forced to travel by land, there was a food-shortage in
Antioch and he stayed on to prevent the populace from rioting, and there
were serious unseasonable storms.52 Since the entire tone of the letter is
apologetic and it is not said whether the famine is the result of a natural
disaster, it is difficult to know what to make of the accumulation of excuses,
unless perhaps the torrential rains caused the food-shortage in the first
47
See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, p. 270 (nr. 94), pp. 272274 (nr. 98).
See further A.D. Lee, War in Late Antiquity. A Social History (Oxford, 2007), pp. 123146,
on the social impact of warfare.
49 Ep. 73; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 194197, with notes at pp. 326328.
50 In any case, there is no mention of this famine in Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence.
51 On this syndrome see E. Watts, Interpreting Catastrophe: Disasters in the Works of
Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, and Timothy Aelurus, Journal
of Late Antiquity 2/1 (2009), pp. 7998, passim.
52 Ep. synodi Orientalium ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp.aug. (CPG 6323); ACO 1/1.5,
pp. 124125. This famine is nr. 52 in Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, p. 230.
48
natural disasters
81
place.53 Firmus letter dates probably from the following year (432). He
entreats a high-placed official, the megaloprepestatos or magnificentissimus
Helladius, not to send troops through Cappadocia, where because of famine
the populace are unable to fulfil the usual onerous obligations of the citizenry to feed them.54 In this case it could be argued that, if the famine did
not come about from a natural disaster, it could have occurred because the
agricultural and other supplies of the region were exhausted after winter
and new crops were late to appear.55
Clearer are the following cases. In two of his Festal Letters Cyril of Alexandria refers to crop failures as the result of natural disasters; likewise, Theodoret of Cyrrhus mentions outright crop failure in two letters. These four
letters will be discussed in detail in the case-studies below. There is evidence
of food-shortages in Rome both before and during the pontificate of Bishop
Gelasius (492496), one of which is said to be the result of drought in Africa
and Gaul, and a visitation of the plague both in the city and country.56 In a
polemical work written in letter-form against the senator Andromachus and
other notable Romans,57 the bishop is less concerned with the pastoral ramifications of these events than to defend himself against the charge made
by some at Rome that such disasters were in fact retribution for Gelasius
abolition of the pagan feast of the Lupercalia.58 The Liber Pontificalis relates
that Gelasius was responsible for saving his city from the threat of famine,
53
This is the charitable suggestion of Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, p. 230.

This is taken by Wiemer, Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln, p. 273, as an indication
that the bishop did not see it as his duty to assume administrative responsibility for a food
crisis, although he argues on the basis of the letter of John of Antioch, discussed above, that a
bishop was expected to remain in his city during such crises (Przenzpflicht). On the strain
imposed on particular cities or regions by the presence of the military see Garnsey, Famine,
p. 253.
55 Ep. 12; eds., trans. Calvet-Sebasti, Gatier, SC 350, pp. 9699, with n. 4 (end) on their
suggestion about the circumstances possibly underlying the shortage. This food-shortage in
Cappadocia is not catalogued by Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, but may be a followon from his nr. 52, which pertains to a shortage in the region of Antioch in MayJune 431, given
that the dating of Firmus letter is probable, not certain.
56 Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nr. 77, p. 248. Cf. also nr. 76.
57 On the form of the letter see N. McLynn, Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia,
Journal of Roman Studies 98 (2008), pp. 161175 at p. 163; ibid., p. 162, on the fact that the
attribution of the letter to Gelasius has been questioned. For Andromachus see PLRE 2, p. 89,
s.v. Andromachus 3.
58 Adversus Andromachum; ed. G. Pomars, Lettre contre les Lupercales et dix-huit messes
du Sacramentaire Lonien, SC 65 (Paris, 1959), par. 14, 18, 23. pp. 172175, 176177, 180181. Cf.
Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, p. 76. On Gelasius arguments for the abolition of the
Lupercalia see McLynn, Crying Wolf, pp. 161175.
54
82
chapter four
perhaps the same natural disaster as the pope discusses in one of his letters.59
It may be even that this energetic bishop took on the administration of the
annona in the city of Rome during his short episcopate.60
From Ps. Joshua the Stylite, writing from the city of Edessa between
494 and 506, we have the most comprehensive and graphic description
of famine from antiquity.61 The shortage appears to have been caused by
a series of natural disasters: an infestation of locusts, a lack of grain and
other foodstuffs, and was itself followed by an epidemic. The influx of people from the surrounding countryside, who heard that the Edessenes took
good care of the needy, exacerbated the famine, and representations were
made to the emperor by both the bishop and secular officials. The governor
Demosthenes came back from Constantinople with a considerable amount
of money for famine relief of the poor:
[H]e marked many of them on their necks with lead seals and gave each of
them a pound of bread per day. However, they could not live (on this), for
they had been debilitated by the distress of hunger which consumed them.
Mortality increased in November, and again in December [500/1ce] when
the frost and ice appeared. Since they spent the night in the colonnades and
streets, the sleep of death took hold of them in their sleep.62
As in John of Ephesus account of the plague (see below), one of the greatest
problems in Edessa was the disposal of corpses, to the point that preChristian graves had to be used. Ps. Joshua is full of praise for the citys
bishop, Peter,63 and for various other clerics who assumed a leadership role
in tending the sick and starving, but once again we have no episcopal letter
to inform us about the catastrophe.
For all that, food-shortages following crop-failures were common everywhere in the Mediterranean in this period. The great famine throughout
Italy at the end of 450 is but one of many examples. It was a wide-spread
shortage which supposedly caused people to sell children and kinsfolk, a
59 LP 1, p. 255; trans. R. Davis, The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis), TTH 6, 2nd ed.
(Liverpool, 2000), p. 44.
60 Suggested by Durliat, De la ville antique, pp. 134137. On the pontificate of Gelasius see
J. Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work: Gelasius I (4926), Journal of Religious History 8 (1975),
pp. 317352; B. Neil, P. Allen, Letters of Gelasius I (492496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of Rome
(forthcoming), with previous bibliography.
61 Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln, p. 259. Ps. Joshuas description (Chron. 3843; ed.
Chabot, CSCO 91, pp. 263270; trans. Trombley, Watt, pp. 3746) is discussed by Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 250255, nr. 80, and by Watts, Interpreting Catastrophe, pp. 1
2.
62 Chron. 42; ed. Chabot, CSCO 91, p. 268; trans. Trombley, Watt, p. 43.
63 See further Wiemer, Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln, pp. 271272.
natural disasters
83
crisis so serious that the management of its aftermath was legislated for by
the emperor Valentinian.64 Given that there was no warfare on a large scale
at that time, this famine appears indeed to have resulted from a natural
disaster.65 So too do the severe famine in North Africa in 484, related by
Bishop Victor of Vita in his History, a disaster caused by extreme drought
and the famine and locust plague in Palestine in 517518 that were caused
by a five-year drought.66 While there is some limited evidence of episcopal
intervention to solve food-shortages in the fifth and sixth centuries, we
cannot agree with Wiemers view that town councils from the fifth century
onwards played an insignificant role in dealing with food-shortages, leaving
the bishop to gain in profile as a spiritual leader and advocate for the poor.67
While this sounds much like sentiments in Browns work,68 Brown is not
cited by Wiemer, and it is a theory that in any case is not supported by the
evidence in bishops letters, with which we are concerned here.
Epidemic Diseases
Epidemics and pestilence are well attested in fifth- and sixth-century
sources, epidemics being often associated with the consumption of bad food
during shortages, as said above.69 A concomitant reduction in the labour
force after epidemics could also cause food-shortages. In a letter of Gelasius I we have an episcopal letter documenting a severe epidemic in Rome in
467 (before his pontificate), perhaps followed by a food-shortage.70 The letter
written from exile by Severus of Antioch, adduced above in the discussion on
earthquakes, mentions in passing an epidemic in Egypt that followed serious tremors.71 This letter probably dates from 519/20.
64
Nov. Val. 33; CTh 5.810, pp. 138140; trans. Pharr, p. 544.
See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nr. 63, pp. 237238.
66 See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nrs. 74 and 85, at p. 245 and pp. 259261,
respectively.
67 Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln, p. 281.
68 Brown, Poverty and Leadership.
69 In addition to the primary sources listed under the section on earthquakes above, see
John of Ephesus, HE, as preserved in the Chronicon of Ps. Dionysius of Tel-Mahre; ed., trans.
J.-B. Chabot, Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, 12, CSCO 91, Scr.
Syr. 3/1 (text), 104, Scr. Syr. 3/2 (trans.) (Louvain, 1927, 1933); trans. W. Witakowski, PseudoDionysius of Tel-Mahre. Chronicle (known also as the Chronicle of Zuqnin) Part III, TTH 22
(Liverpool, 1996).
70 Adversus Andromachum 13; ed. Pomars, p. 173. See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nr. 70, p. 243.
71 Select Letters 5.12; ed., trans. Brooks, vol. 1, pp. 383384 (text), vol. 2, p. 340 (trans.).
65
84
chapter four
However, it is the so-called Justinianic pandemic that raged around the

Mediterranean from 541/2 and did not abate until the eighth century that
is predominant in the fifth- and sixth-century source material.72 This was a
demographical crisis of huge proportions which not only reduced the population significantly but also contributed to a redistribution of land as fertile
estates were left deserted and survivors moved in; the sources inform us that
no placeparticularly not a densely-populated citywas immune from its
random but vicious progress. This pandemic also had a significant impact on
the contemporary reputation and Nachleben of Emperor Justinian, putting
him in a triumvirate with Xerxes and Nero in terms of negative Kaiserkritik.73
All in all, it would have been impossible for contemporary bishops in the
empire, both East and West, to avoid dealing with the physical, psychological and social implications of such a long-running disaster and, in the case
of earthquakes too, attempting some theodicy with the Christians entrusted
to their pastoral care.
Several graphic and sustained descriptions exist of the pandemic in the
sixth century, deriving exclusively from the eastern empire, the most important being those of Ps. Joshua the Stylite, Procopius, John of Ephesus (whose
HE is partly contained in Ps. Dionysius Chronicle) and Evagrius Scholasticus.
We begin with Ps. Joshua, whose exact identity is unknown but who certainly was an eyewitness of catastrophic events in Edessa in Syria between
the years 494506 ce. During this time Edessa witnessed not only the plague
but also earthquakes, infestations of locusts, unusual solar phenomena and
famine. While as we saw above, Wiemer brands Ps. Joshuas account of the
Edessan famine as the most extensive and exact description that has come
down to us from antiquity,74 the Stylites detailed description of the plague
that hit his city is equally comprehensive.
As all the people had sinned, they all fell victim to this disease. Swellings and
tumours appeared on all our citizens, and the faces of many became puffed
up and filled with pus, making it a fearful sight. Some had sores or pustules
over their whole body, even to the palms of their hands and the soles of their
feet, while others had great fissures on every single limb.75
72 Over and above Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nrs. 41, 52, 70, 71 and 77, pp. 110
154, nrs. 102112, pp. 277289, and nrs. 114118, pp. 290294, for lit. on the sixth-century plague
see Meier, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians, pp. 321341, pp. 373387, and the essays in ed.
L. Little, Plague and the End of Antiquity. The Pandemic of 541750 (New York, 2007).
73 See Sonnabend, Naturkatastrophen, pp. 148153.
74 Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln, p. 259.
75 Chron. 26; ed. Chabot, CSCO 91, p. 253; trans. Trombley, Watt, p. 23.
natural disasters
85
In the ensuing mayhem of a quadruple affliction, the citizens took to

violence and the bishop of the city, Cyrus, urged them to make donations
towards eucharistic vessels.76 Cyrus and his successor, Peter, who replaced
him in 498 (d. 510), play a prominent role in Ps. Joshuas narrative. In the
wake of the solar phenomena, for example, Bishop Peter is said to have
organised processions and public prayers and hymn-singing,77 and to have
petitioned the emperor to waive taxes.78
John of Ephesus, himself a bishop, wrote an account of the plague in his
Church History, which is preserved in the Chronicle of Ps. Dionysius of TelMahre. This is the most graphic representation of the pestilential drama
confronting Justinians empire, with depictions of rotting corpses on the
streets, houses like tombs, ships stranded in harbours for lack of personnel,
empty palaces, deserted highways and abandoned villages. John quotes from
the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Joel to impress upon his readers that this
natural disaster is a punishment for sin. He describes how the plague fixed
first on the poor when it arrived in Constantinople, claiming that sometimes
16,000 corpses lay in the streets in a single day and that over 300,000 were
taken off the streets. The entire city then came to a standstill as if it had
perished, so that its food supply stopped.79 Much of Johns narrative is
preoccupied with the difficulty of disposing of bodies, and although at one
point he describes Justinians interventions to assist with this problem, there
is no mention in his entire account of any role played by a bishop in the
disasters that had befallen the capital of the eastern empire, or any other
region for that matter.80
In Evagrius account of the plague there are also personal details, given
that he suffered buboes while a child and lost several family members to the
pestilence in its various occurrences, but there is no mention of episcopal
leadership in these crises, although the church historian himself was in the
employ of Patriarch Gregory of Antioch (570593) and well acquainted with
his predecessors.81
While the literary evidence for the Justinianic pandemic is overwhelmingly eastern (Greek and Syriac) and derives from historical and hagiographical sources, there are also some inscriptions, particularly from Palestine and
76
77
78
79
80
81
Chron. 28; ed. Chabot, CSCO 91, p. 255; trans. Trombley, Watt, p. 26.
Chron. 36; ed. Chabot, CSCO 91, p. 263; trans. Trombley, Watt, pp. 3536.
Chron. 39; ed. Chabot, CSCO 91, p. 266; trans. Trombley, Watt, pp. 4041.
Ps. Dionysius, Chron. a. 855, ch. 4; ed. Chabot, p. 97; trans. Witakowski, p. 88.
For the entire episode see Chabot, ed., pp. 80101; trans. Witakowski, pp. 7493.
HE 4.29; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, pp. 177179; trans. Whitby, pp. 229232.
86
chapter four
Arabia, which may corroborate the progress of the plague,82 although only
one of them mentions the disaster specifically. This is the inscription put
up by the elders of the Arabian city of Zora in 542/3 on which it is stated
that their bishop, Varos, died of buboes.83 In the West the epigraphical evidence is also sparse. Kulikowski remarks that in Spain only a single epitaph
from the period attests to death from plague.84 It is noteworthy that not a
single episcopal letter from either East or West, with the exception of Gelasius tract Adversus Andromachum, attests to this devastating and recurring
natural disaster.
Silence of the Sources
In this chapter we have established that there are very few episcopal letters
from the fifth and sixth centuries dealing with natural disasters, although,
as we remarked at the beginning, other evidence for the whole gamut of
natural disasters during this period is irrefutable. Letters of Synesius of
Cyrene, John of Antioch, Cyril of Alexandria, Firmus of Caesarea, Theodoret
of Cyrrhus, Gelasius of Rome and Severus of Antioch give sparse evidence
of various disasters, some of which may be natural rather than caused
by human agency, though it may be doubted whether some contemporaries bothered to differentiate between the two kinds. Again, the rhetoric
employed by some bishops in their treatment of natural disasters, for example, Synesius and perhaps John of Antioch, makes it difficult to assess how
seriously we are to take reports of catastrophes: catalogues of woes including natural disasters do not necessarily prove historical events. Some of the
few surviving episcopal letters we do have are not recorded in the reference
works: these are two Festal Letters of Cyril of Alexandria on crop failure as
a result of natural disaster, two letters of Theodoret dealing with repeated
82 Adduced by J. Durliat, La peste du VIe sicle. Pour un nouvel examen des sources
byzantines, in ed. C. Abadie-Reynal, Hommes et richesses dans lempire Byzantin I (IV eVII e
sicles), Ralits byzantines (Paris, 1989), pp. 107119, esp. p. 108. See further Trombley, Watt,
The Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua, p. 46 n. 221; for the reconstruction of the beginnings of the
pandemic see Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 279280; and cf. Meier, Das andere
Zeitalter Justinians, p. 326 n. 112, on epigraphical evidence.
83 Ed. J. Koder, Ein einschriftlicher Beleg zur justinianischen Pest in Zora (Azraa), Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995), pp. 1318. Cf. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 281282, nr.
106.
84 M. Kulikowski, Spanish Plague in Late Antiquity, pp. 150170, in ed. Little, Plague and
the End of Antiquity, at p. 156.
natural disasters
87
food-shortages, and a letter from exile of Severus of Antioch in which he

mentions earthquake and epidemic in Egypt, but not in a pastoral or managerial manner. Were very few letters composed by bishops on the topic of
natural disasters, or have practically all of them perished?
In dealing with the paucity of epistolographical evidence for crisis in the
fifth and sixth centuries, particularly in this chapter for natural disasters,
we have taken cognisance of the remarks of Alfldy, who pointed out that
the crisis in the third century (which we know was in some ways similar to
that of the fifth and sixth centuries) is found reported in works of history,
rhetoric, apologetics and philosophy (but not letters; our addendum).85 This
observation, together with the dearth of episcopal letters related to natural
disasters during the timeframe of our research, has led us to look further
afield in order to ascertain whether the manifest lack of evidence in letters
is perhaps endemic to the epistolary genre. In so doing, and relying on
Guidoboni, Stathakopoulos and Telelis, although as we indicated at the
outset these works are not absolutely comprehensive, we found that for
the fourth century there are only eight letters pertaining to these natural
phenomena, three written by bishops (Basil of Caesarea and Ambrose of
Milan) and five by pagans (Libanius and Symmachus).86
John Chrysostom, whom we have deliberately not treated extensively
in this volume, wrote from his exile a letter to Bishop Innocent of Rome
between 405 and 407, detailing the hardships he had to put up with: famine,
pestilence, wars, continual sieges, indescribable solitude, daily deaths, and
Isaurian swords.87 Although it seems that there was indeed a serious famine
in the regions of Johns exile in 405, it is difficult to lend complete credence to
this litany of woes, especially given that they are written by an increasingly
disaffected exile.88 While the Registrum epistularum of Gregory I of Rome,
which compared with the letters we have been studying in this chapter is a
huge collection from a single individual, also lies outside our chronological
remit, it is pertinent to note that there too, little can be found on natural
85 G. Alfldy, Historisches Bewutsein whrend der Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts, in Krisen in

der Antike. Bewutsein und Bewltigung, Bochumer Historische Studien 13 (Dsseldorf, 1975),
pp. 112132 at p. 113.
86 See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nrs. 16 (Libanius); 21 (Basil); 24, 31, 33, 37
(Symmachus); 28, 29 (Ambrose).
87 John Chry., Ep. 2 ad Innocentium; PG 52, 535536. Trans. Stathakopoulos, Famine and
Pestilence, p. 221, nr. 41.
88 On Johns progressively worsening psychological state see Delmaire, Les lettres de Jean
Chrysostome, pp. 283291.
88
chapter four
disasters: two letters attest to food-shortages in 591 and 595,89 and three to
visitations of the plague.90
If we then consider the evidence after the year 600ce down to the tenth
century, the same pattern emerges, but in an even more pronounced form.
Every mention of a natural disaster derives from chronicles, histories, or
hagiographical works. Still more pointedly we note that in Telelis inventory
from the fourth to the tenth centuries not a single letter of any kind is
registered as evidence of climate events. What is also striking is the disparity
between the numbers of reports of natural disasters between East and West,
the eastern empire providing significantly more, but still limited, material,
while the evidence from both parts of the empire tends to be region-specific.
Here is the place to offer further comments on episcopal epistolary reactions, or lack of them, to climate change in Late Antiquity. In his catalogue
of climate and weather events in the fifth and sixth centuries, Telelis lists no
fewer than 138 climatic events (not all of them natural disasters), attested in
three types of sources: chronicles, histories and hagiographical accounts;91
but, as we have already said, there is no evidence from episcopal or other letters concerning these phenomena. There is a scholarly consensus that after
about 500 there were climate-change events, although the extent is disputed
and some phenomena were no doubt viewed through an eschatological
lens; but if bishops were not interested anyway in recording in their letters
natural events and their impact, we could not expect them to write about
such changes, even if they realized what was happening. Even such general
and devastating events as the regression of cultivated land and widespread
demographic decline caused by the plague, although it was probably shortterm, do not rate a mention in episcopal correspondence;92 nor does a widely
documented dust-veil event, an uncommon phenomenon, which occurred
throughout the empire over about an eighteen-month period in 536537
and caused crops not to ripen properly.93 When phenomena of such magnitude that affected the whole empire are not reported, it is then not sur-
89 Reg. 1.70, 5.36; ed. Norberg, vol. 1, pp. 7879, pp. 304307; trans. Martyn, vol. 1, p. 194, and
vol. 2, p. 350, respectively. Cf. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nr. 153, pp. 322323.
90 Reg. 2.2, 9.232, 10.20; ed. Norberg, vol. 1, pp. 9091; vol. 2, pp. 814815, pp. 850851;
trans. Martyn, vol. 1, pp. 184185, vol. 2, pp. 705706, and vol. 3, pp. 729730, respectively. Cf.
Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, n. 154, p. 323; nr. 162, pp. 332333.
91 Telelis, , vol. 1, pp. 141277.
92 On these results of natural disasters and climate change see Koder, Climatic Change
in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries?; Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, pp. 166168.
93 Registered in Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, nr. 92, pp. 265268.
natural disasters
89
prising that other, more local, straws in the wind regarding climate change
are ignored too. Just two examples will suffice here: firstly, the serious inundations that occurred in Rome in 411, 555, 579 and 589, which are attested
mostly in chronicles,94 and secondly the tsunami on the coast of the Levant
on 9 July 551.95
When we consider a non-epistolographical literary genre, namely the
Liber Pontificalis, we find different approaches to natural disasters within
the one genre. In the Roman Liber, for example, such disasters mostly rate
a mention only insofar as they witness to the concomitant generosity of
the bishop of Rome to his city, whereas Bishop Agnellus, the ninth-century
author of the Liber of Ravenna, is happy to include disasters of many kinds,
not only the catastrophic but also the merely shocking.96
Sonnabend suggests that after catastrophes people want something
graphic on durable material such as stone or bronze to help with meaningmaking, particularly in cemeteries.97 While this is at first blush plausible,
there is still very little clear epigraphical evidence of this preference in our
period, particularly on the part of bishops, and even the episcopal liturgical commemoration of natural disasters, as we have seen, is pretty much
limited to the hymns of Severus of Antioch. In addition, as we have already
suggested, convincing meaning-making is difficult within the limited compass of a letter or even a homily, as opposed to a chronicle or history. We
have discussed the sparse epigraphical records of the plague from Arabia to
Spain, and Durliat has drawn attention to the scant references to the sixthcentury plague in non-historical sources: epigraphy, papyrological documents, numismatics, architecture and archaeology, but he also notes that
even administrative correspondence is strangely silent about this natural
disaster.98
94 See Sonnabend, Naturkatastrophen, pp. 6063, on the Classical period; G.S. Aldrete,
Floods of the Tiber in Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 2007), p. 243.
95 Not catalogued by Stathakopoulos; on the tsunami phenomena see H. Dey, B. Goodman-Tchernov, Tsunamis and the Port of Caesarea Maritima over the Longue Dure: A
Geoarchaeological Perspective, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23 (2010), pp. 265284.
96 See in more detail B. Neil, Crisis and Wealth in Byzantine Italy: The Libri Pontificales
of Rome, Ravenna, Byzantion 82 (2012), pp. 279303. Cf. Durliat, La peste, p. 113, who notes
that both Libri are not informative in their information about the plague.
97 Naturkatastrophen, pp. 153154.
98 Durliat, La peste. See too Meier, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians, p. 324, n. 104. Cf.
W. Brandes, Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth CenturiesDifferent Sources,
Different Histories?, in eds. G.P. Brogiolo, B. Ward-Perkins, The Idea and Ideal of the Town
between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, The Transformation of the Roman World 4
(Leiden, 1999), pp. 2557 at pp. 3334.
90
chapter four
All these findings so far point to the possibility that we are not reckoning with a huge corpus of lost letters on the subject of natural disasters,
but that rather, as a general rule, the epistolographical genre did not lend
itself to recording such events. We adduced the case of the single letter of
Severus of Antioch which reports earthquake and epidemic in a detached,
news-reporting and non-pastoral manner, and juxtaposed this with his
quite expansive hymnological treatment of earthquakes, where he plays on
the fear and guilt of his singing congregations in either very recent catastrophes or disasters within living memory. It is also the case that within the
limited compass of a letter, a homily, or even a hymn, the bishop did not
have enough elbow-room to develop a programmatic treatment or theodicy of any natural disaster of recent occurrence or within living memory,
as opposed, for example, to the historians of church and state who were at
liberty to expatiate on such phenomena to the extent that they fitted their
historiographical agenda. Thus Watts observations on the political events
of 410 which led the church historian Philostorgius to integrate the sack
of Rome into a larger, thematically driven narrative that demarcated the
events spiritual and temporal causes as well as its consequences,99 go well
beyond what a bishop could achieve in his letters, homilies, or hymns. As
in the case of Theodoret, the bishops only recourse was to write a church
history to explain the events of his time to suit his theological programme.
We may posit that the eschatological interpretation of disasters, natural and
otherwise, which, as we have already said, was in vogue from around the
beginning of the sixth century, could also not be reflected within the limited scope of episcopal letters, although we might have expected bishops to
feel responsible in some way, even tangentially, for interpreting the Zeitgeist
for their correspondents, whether clerical, monastic, or lay. Again, with the
exception of the Festal Letters of Cyril of Alexandria, in those few episcopal
letters that do relate to natural disasters, the sin-and-punishment syndrome
does not appear. If we are to assume that bishops responses to crises that
had an eschatological tenor were confined to the liturgical sphere, then
there are precious few examples of that either.100 More than once we have
mentioned the hymns of Severus of Antioch on earthquakes; after that we
99
Interpreting Catastrophe, p. 5.
Examples include Leo Is Homily 84 on the anniversary of the sack of Rome by Alaric, in
which Leo attributes the sparing of citizens to the protection of the saints in whose shrines
Christians and others took refuge; and the Rogations in Gaul on the occasion of the Visigothic
invasions.
100
natural disasters
91
have to wait for liturgical evidence until the seventh century for four homilies on plague from the Toledo homiliary, which seem to have been kept on
hand as pieces that were expected to be of use in future outbreaks of pestilence.101
Conclusion
Unfortunately we shall have to conclude this chapter on a negative note,
quite opposed to the optimistic outlook voiced by Telelis in 2007, as follows: The study of texts from the vast Byzantine bodies of epistolography
and rhetoric is expected to contribute towards the elucidation of problems
related to the perception of weather and, generally, nature by the Byzantines.102 While we cannot vouch for the worth of rhetorical texts or letters
from the middle and later Byzantine period on the topic of natural disasters,
and it was outside Telelis brief in his article to deal with western evidence, it
is abundantly obvious that, for a number of possible and probable reasons,
surviving fifth- and sixth-century letters from the East as well as the West,
episcopal or otherwise, are disappointing sources both in terms of quantity
and content with regard to the knowledge and management of weatherevents and natural disasters.
Case-Studies of Natural Disaster Management
Case-Study 1. Cyril of Alexandria (412444)
It is well known that the Festal or Paschal Letters emanating annually from
the patriarchate of Alexandria were homilies couched in letter form, read
out and studied either in Greek or Coptic in churches and monasteries. Their
primary purpose was ostensibly to determine and announce well in advance
to the churches and monasteries of Egypt the dates of the forthcoming
seasons of Lent, Easter and Pentecost. However, relying on their monolithic
power, the Alexandrian patriarchs often used these communications to
pronounce authoritatively on matters of orthodoxy, church discipline, and
101 Trans. by A. Langenwalter in Kulikowski, Spanish Plague in Late Antiquity, in ed. Little,
Plague and the End of Antiquity, pp. 150170. See Kulikowski, p. 156, on the assumption that
the homilies were kept as a resource.
102 Weather and Climate as Factors, p. 462.
92
chapter four
other current issues.103 The reading out of these Festal Letters in a liturgical
context has rightly been equated with a mass media event.104 29 of Cyrils
Festal Letters have survived to us from his long patriarchate (412444), the
most complete surviving collection of these pieces from any patriarch of
Alexandria in Late Antiquity.105
At the outset of his patriarchate Cyril was concerned to establish his
authority over against that of his uncle and predecessor, Theophilus (385
412), as well as against pagans, Jews, Novatians and tacitly Arians, and these
preoccupations are reflected in his Festal Letters.106 However, in his seventh Festal Letter, dating from 419, the patriarchs attention turned to other
issues. In the beginning of the Festal Letter the patriarch uses the usual
themes of putting into port and fastening the cables, the trumpet blast that
announced the beginning of the Lenten fast, the necessity of excising bad
habits by adhering to the fast and the duty of loving God and neighbour,
before denouncing feral behaviour that degrades human nature. It becomes
clear immediately that he has a particular form of feral behaviour in mind,
namely the gang violence approximating fratricide that is in vogue in Egypt.
Addressing the peasants of the country, the patriarch claims that, now when
the crops are ready for harvesting,
103 On the genre of the Festal Letter see J. Quasten, Patrology, vol. 3, The Golden Age of Greek
Patristic Literature From the Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon (Utrecht 1950; repr.
Westminster 1988), pp. 5255 (on Athanasius Festal Letters); M.F.A. Brok, propos des lettres
festales, VC 5 (1951), pp. 101110; A. Klzer, Die Festbriefe (Epistolai heortastikai)Eine
wenig beachtete Untergattung der byantinischen Briefliteratur, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 91
(1998), pp. 370390; P. Allen, Cyril of Alexandrias Festal Letters. The Politics of Religion, in
eds. D. Luckensmeyer, P. Allen, Studies of Religion and Politics in the Early Christian Centuries,
Early Christian Studies 13 (Strathfield, 2010), pp. 195210, esp. pp. 196201, with lit.
104 By K. Banev, Pastoral Polemics. A Rhetorical Analysis of Theophilus of Alexandrias
Letters in the First Origenist Controversy, DPhil diss. Cambridge, 2007, pp. xiixiii. We are
grateful to the author for allowing us to use his work before its publication.
105 These are found in PG 77, 401981 (CPG 5240). New text, French trans. in progress by
vieux () et al., eds., SC 372, SC 392 and SC 434. Eng. trans. of this edition is in progress
in trans. P.R. Amidon, intro. J.J. OKeefe, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 112, FOTC 118
(Washington, DC, 2009). All but the Letters for the years 413, 443 and 444 have come down
to us. Cyril was enthroned on 14 October 412, probably too late to compose the Letter for the
following year. On his first letter see A. Camplani, A, Martin, Lettres festales et listes piscopales dans l glise d Alexandrie et d gypte. propos de la liste piscopale accompagnant
la premire lettre festale de Cyrille d Alexandrie conserve en copte, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 30 (2000), pp. 720. vieux, SC 372, p. 46, speculates that either Theophilus final Letter
had already been dispatched, or else that Cyril gave a short communication announcing the
dates of Lent, Easter and Pentecost for 413. It is difficult to say why the Festal Letters for 443
and 444 have not survived in an otherwise well-preserved collection.
106 On these preoccupations of Cyril see further Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria, pp. 3945,
where she deals with Cyrils Festal Letters, mostly those from 414418.
natural disasters
93
the inhabitants of the land have cast shame upon their own joy, since some of
them have turned to killing, and have made the fruitful earth drunk on human
blood; they have raised the fratricidal sword against each other, and that iron
which is so good for husbandry, and for that reason especially was created by
God, they have made the instrument of the worst impiety.107
This behaviour, continues Cyril, has angered God to the extent that he has
caused a natural disaster: the crops have been destroyed by fire, and Egypt,
the granary of the world, is subjected to famine and her people reduced
to finding bread by the wayside that is hardly edible. This gives rise to a
quotation from Lamentations 1:11: All her people groan as they search for
bread, and from Lamentations 4:45: The tongue of the sucking child clove
to the roof of its mouth for thirst. The little children asked for bread, and there
was none to break it for them. Finally, Cyril expresses the divine anger in
the present circumstances by the fact that the Egyptian people have sown
much but harvested little (Hag 1:6).108 In a brutal application of the sin-andpunishment syndrome, the patriarch demands repentance from those to
whom he is writing, ordering bishops, clergy and abbots of monasteries to
enjoin the Egyptian people to seek Gods compassion through observance
of the Lenten fast.
The feral behaviour of the Egyptians alleged in Cyrils seventh Festal Letter
purportedly did not go away. In his Festal Letter of the following year, following the customary imagery of sailing and trumpets and general injunctions
to love, the patriarch once again addresses the problem of violence in Egyptian communities. The same strategy is adduced as in the Festal Letter of
419, namely the accusation that iron implements designated for the production of bountiful crops are deployed by farmers to murder their neighbours.
Almost as a precursor to eco-theology, Cyril fulminates:
How can you then not blush to treat unjustly the things that have given you
lifes necessities? Down goes your murder victim, and you empurple the earth
with innocent blood. How can you still entreat her to become the mother of
your crops, when you wrong her so mercilessly?109
This time, however, the patriarch alleges that it is hail that has devastated
the soon-to-be-harvested crops, although the extent of the damage varied
107 Festal Letter 7.2; eds. vieux et al., vol. 2, p. 42, 6976 (PG 77, 548A); trans. Amidon,
OKeefe, p. 132.
108 Festal Letter 7.2; eds. vieux et al., vol. 2, p. 42, 86100 (PG 77, 548AC); cf. trans. in
Amidon, OKeefe, p. 133.
109 Festal Letter 8.3; eds. vieux et al., vol. 2, p. 80, 2226 (PG 77, 561C); trans. Amidon,
OKeefe, p. 143.
94
chapter four
from one town to another.110 The readers and listeners of Cyrils Festal Letters are anew referred to Scripture to ascertain the reasons behind this
natural disaster, although the argumentation from the sin-and-punishment
syndrome is already abundantly obvious, and to seek Gods compassion for
their evil deeds. The rest of the Letter is taken up with christological arguments against Arians and others.
As far as we can ascertain, there are no other reports of gang violence
or natural disasters from fire and hail in Egypt during the years 419420.111
It may be that in exaggeration Cyril is using local natural disasters that
happened on a small scale to reinforce his authoritative call to all Egyptians
for Lenten repentance.
Case-Study 2. Theodoret of Cyrrhus (423c. 466)
From Theodoret of Cyrrhus, who died between 460 and 466, we have 232
surviving letters, whereas the fourteenth-century ecclesiastical historian,
Nicephorus Callistus, had access to over 500 of themstill not the total
output, one may surmise, of a controversial and influential theologian and
bishop.112
Letters 4247, XVII and XX, which Tomkins has convincingly dated to
445 and 446,113 demonstrate Theodorets involvement with the people of
Cyrrhestica who were struggling to pay their taxation to the state in money
and kind (iugatio). These eight letters were sent to a variety of high-placed
addressees, including the empress Pulcheria, and in them Theodoret pulls
out all rhetorical stops, depicting his region and its population in a pitiful
light in order to effect a reduction in the tax. He claims that the region is
mountainous and infertile, an exaggeration from which it does not follow
that food-shortages have caused the plight of the farmers.114 Nevertheless,
110 Festal Letter 8.3; eds. vieux et al., vol. 2, p. 86, 81104 (PG 77, 564C565A); cf. trans. in
Amidon, OKeefe, pp. 144145.
111 There is also nothing pertaining to such events in Egypt during these year registered in
either Telelis, , or Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, ad loc.
112 Letters designated by Roman numerals belong to the Collectio Sakkelionis (Azma,
vol. 1); those designated by Arabic numerals belong to the Collectio Sirmondiana (Azma,
vol. 2). On Theodorets correspondence see the lit. cited in Chapter 3, Case-study 4, n. 119
above. On Theodorets career see T. Urbainczyk, Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Bishop and the
Holy Man (Ann Arbor, MI, 2002).
113 Tomkins, Problems of Dating and Pertinence, pp. 184189, 194.
114 See Tomkins, Problems of Dating and Pertinence, p. 182 n. 27, on the exaggeration;
on Theodorets recourses to rhetoric see Spadavecchia, The Rhetorical Tradition; Schor,
Theodorets People, pp. 158159 (specifically on Theodorets rhetorical tactics in the debate
over the iugatio).
natural disasters
95
some scholars have detected a connection between the eight letters concerning the iugatio and another two that do seem to relate to poor harvests
and food-shortages, Letters XVIII and 23, which we shall deal with in what
follows.115
Theodoret addresses both these short letters to Areobindus (d. 449), a
local landowner: Letter XVIII to him as patricius and Letter 23 as magister militum per Orientem. From the use of these different titles there are
implications for dating, which need concern us here only to the extent that
the letters can be assigned to the period between 423 and 434.116 In the former letter, the bishop appeals to Areobindus for mercy on the grounds that,
because of crop failure over a period of two years, the farmers of the region
are unable to meet their commitment to pay him a tax-in-kind consisting of
olive oil.
I greet Your Magnificence by letter and beg that the place called Sergitha (it
is part of our diocese), which is under your control, may enjoy your kindness.
For the amount of oil that the local farmers have to contribute is ruining them,
because neither last year nor this has the land produced crops, or extremely
little.117
The bishop claims that he has been repeatedly annoyed by the farmers with
demands that he intercede with Areobindus. In Letter 23 the bishop points
out to the patricius the advantages pertaining to rich people who help the
poor. It is again a question of a food-shortage, and Areobindus is urged
towards a generosity that presumably takes the form of reducing the oil tax.
Since, then, the Master has inflicted us with scourges this yearmuch fewer
than our sins, but nevertheless sufficient to distress the farmersI recently
informed Your Magnificence about this through your labourers, have pity, I
beg you, on those who work the land, who have put in the work but have
reaped a paltry harvest.118
Hahn linked Letter XVIII to the iugatio debate,119 while Martindale and
Azma connected Letter 23 with Theodorets efforts to revise the iugatio.120
However, as Tomkins perceived,121 we are dealing here with two very different sets of circumstances: with the iugatio it is a case of an imperial tax
115
Ed. Azma, vol. 1, pp. 8990 and vol. 2, p. 23, respectively.

For the arguments see Tomkins, Problems of Dating and Pertinence, pp. 193195.
117 Azma, vol. 1, p. 90, 16. Our translation.
118 Azma, vol. 2, p. 81, 713. Our translation.
119 I. Hahn, Theodoretus Cyrus und die frhbyzantinische Besteuerung, Acta Antiqua
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10 (1962), pp. 123130 at p. 123 n. 2, p. 126 with n. 15.
120 PLRE 2, pp. 145146, s.v. Fl. Ariobindus 2; Azma, vol. 2, p. 80 n. 1.
121 Problems of Dating and Pertinence, p. 183.
116
96
chapter four
which perhaps has been oppressive for some time and not induced by natural disasters, while in Letters XVIII and 23, where the farmers are to pay their
local landlord rent in oil, there seems to be genuine hardship caused by two
successive years of crop failure.
In surviving episcopal correspondence from the fifth and sixth centuries,
these two letters of Theodoret are unique in documenting the pastoral concern of a bishop in the face of the hardship of local farmers and advocating an alleviation of their plight. Neither food-shortage is catalogued in
Stathakopoulos, who, however, does record a possible famine and epidemic
in Telanissos, east of Antioch in the 440s (?), which is reported in Theodorets
Historia religiosa.122
The hardship resulting from crop-failure is not attributed by Theodoret,
as it is by Cyril, to divine displeasure or a sin-and-punishment syndrome
based on specific transgressions, but to climatic conditions and the fact
that poor tenant farmers had no resources to withstand the shortagea not
uncommon event especially after successive crop failures.123
122 Famine and Pestilence, nr. 55, pp. 232233. Also registered as nr. 82 in Telelis, , vol. 1, pp. 159160.
123 See Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence, p. 55, who calculates that in the Mediterranean during this period there was a food-shortage every 3.3 years.
chapter five
RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES AND VIOLENCE
Introduction
In contrast to the dearth of information available on natural disasters in
Chapter 4, on the topic of religious conflict we face an embarrassment of
riches in the epistolary sources from all regions. The fifth and sixth centuries were riven by religious controversy within the eastern and western
churches, and between the two, much of it generated by mixed responses
to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. In this chapter we give a brief survey
of the epistolary evidence on main heresies and schisms, starting with
Nestorianism and Eutychianism, and the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. A lengthy and often heated exchange of letters between the main
players preceded each council. The aftermath of the councils culminated
in the Acacian schism, which saw the bishops of Rome and Constantinople breaking communion with each other for 35 years. In the sixth century the condemnation of three eastern bishops and their works engendered the Three Chapters controversy,1 which was dealt with at the Council
of Constantinople II. Neo-Chalcedonianism, Origenism, apthartodocetism,
agnoetism and tritheism were also subjects of controversy that troubled the
eastern churches in the sixth century. The origins of the more regional problems of Arianism (Gaul, Italy, North Africa and Spain), Donatism (North
Africa), Pelagianism (North Africa, Italy and Gaul), Priscillianism (Spain)
and Manicheism (North Africa, Italy) pre-date our period of interest, so our
discussion of them will focus on episcopal letters illustrating their status
from 410 to 590.
A glaring limitation of the surviving epistolary evidence is its strong
bias towards the orthodox view on any given controversy. Bishops of Rome
are over-represented in the surviving correspondence, due to their selfappointed role as scourgers of heresy, and the fortunate preservation of
much of their correspondence with other bishops, although of course it
only presents the Roman point of view. Notwithstanding the limitations
1 This is also dealt with in Chapter 3, Exile, Flight, Confinement, in relation to the exile
of Vigilius of Rome.
98
chapter five
inherent in the evidence, we attempt to show both the success with which
a bishop could use letters to influence the course of a doctrinal controversy,
the use of letters in council acta and the practical constraints imposed by
the epistolary medium.
The problems caused for bishops by religious controversies were not just
theological and political: they entailed the persecution, often violent, of the
non-orthodox, as well as violent resistance from the non-orthodox themselves, as we will see in the case of the violence of Egyptian and Palestinian
monks in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon. The complex interrelations between the ideas and personae of the various controversies also made
life difficult for bishops. Add to this the logistical problems imposed by the
shortfalls of the imperial postal system, and religious controversies become
a real test of episcopal crisis management skills. Our first case-study will
treat the Codex encyclius, a dossier of documents circulated by Emperor Leo
in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon. The fall-out from Chalcedon
continued right up until the end of the sixth century and beyond, eventually
affecting the unity of the anti-Chalcedonian party, as our second case-study
on the monophysite documents will show.
Cyril and Nestorius: An Unfortunate Pairing
Nestorius, a Syrian monk and disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia, came
to the patriarchate of Constantinople in 428 ill-prepared for the political
intrigues in which he was about to be embroiled. The rivalry between the
sees of Alexandria and Constantinople had been sharpened by the elevation of New Rome as second in honour to Old Rome by the second Ecumenical Council, held at Constantinople (381ce). Theophilus of Alexandria
had taken a big stick to another Antiochene patriarch of Constantinople,
John Chrysostom, and forced him into exile, first in 403 and again in 404.
Theophilus nephew and successor to the patriarchate, Cyril of Alexandria
(412444), was unimpressed by the choice of another Antiochene candidate
in 428, the monk Nestorius. Nestorius did not help himself by quickly getting
several Christian factions offside in his own see: the Arians, Quartodecimans, Novatianists and Macedonians were all violently evicted from their
churches in Constantinople as part of his attempt to root out heresy.
Nestorius added fuel to the fire being prepared for him by endorsing the
preaching of a young priest against the application of the title of mother of
God (Greek Theotokos, literally the God-bearer) to the Virgin Mary. The
historian Socrates reports that in the course of a sermon Nestorius protg
religious controversies and violence
99
Anastasius made the following incendiary pronouncement in Constantinople: Let no man call Mary the mother of God, for Mary was human and
it is impossible that God could be born from a human being.2 Given that
the term God-bearer had been used of Mary by such authorities as Origen,
Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, Nestorius support for the priest Anastasius was bound to cause a scandal. Cyril, a seasoned
political operator, seized the opportunity to attack his rival and greatly exaggerated the offence of Nestorius, falsely accusing him of Apollinarianism
and Pelagianism. He made his offensive in a series of letters to Pope Celestine, Nestorius and the imperial court, accompanied by gifts meant to
sway Theodosius opinion.3 As Lim comments, These letters did not help
to resolve the conflict. Indeed, the wide publicity attending the reception of
these controversial and polemical documents tended to make the dispute
more intractable.4 The newly-elected patriarch of Constantinople was in
no position to defend himself. In his Bazaar of Heraclides 228,5 Nestorius
claimed that he could not understand what Cyril meant by the term hypostatic union in relation to the incarnate Christ, which term Nestorius interpreted in the outdated Nicene sense of real being, the equivalent of ousia.
Cyril was actually using hypostasis in the new sense adopted by the Council
of Constantinople in 381 to mean differentiated subject.6 Nestorius theological position on the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ was informed
by the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, that there was not a personal
union in Christ but a union of different things in close relation (henosis
schetike), a position that came dangerously close to the division of Christ
into two hypostases or persons.7 Cyril saw a link between what he perceived
as Nestorian adoptionismi.e. the doctrine that God the Father merely
adopted the human Jesus as his son, having foreseen his meritsand the
Pelagian theory that Christ was simply a moral example for humankind,
rather than its saviour.8
2 ,
. Socrates, HE 7.32.2; ed. Hansen, GCS NF 1, p. 380; eds. Hansen, Maraval,
SC 506, p. 114.
3 The subject of Cyrils gifts to the imperial court is taken up in Chapter 6, Social Abuses.
4 R. Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, 1995),
p. 220.
5 Ed. F. Nau, Le livre de Hraclide de Damas (Paris, 1910), p. 138.
6 J. McGuckin, Cyril of Alexandria: the Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and
Texts, Supplements to VC 23 (Leiden, 1994), pp. 148149.
7 See McGuckin, Cyril, pp. 151174, on associative difference in Christ.
8 See section on Pelagianism below.
100
chapter five
The increasingly-heated correspondence between Cyril and Nestorius

has been the subject of intense scrutiny in recent scholarship,9 which we
will not rehearse here. Appended to Cyrils third letter to Nestorius was a list
of anathemata (known as the Twelve Chapters). These curses on the works
and person of Nestorius, and those who accepted his writings, were widely
circulated and caused outrage among the party of John of Antioch.10 The
Council of Ephesus was convened in 431 to settle the dispute, and Cyril took
the uncanonical step of opening the conference before the arrival of the
oriental party. This rash action, which showed utter disrespect for the see
of Antioch, caused Cyril to be confined to house-arrest for a brief period
during the council. Upon his release, Cyril gave a persuasive defence of his
position to the bishops assembled at the council, including an explanation
of the Twelve Chapters,11 and succeeded in having Nestorius condemned and
exiled.12 However, the christological issue was not yet put to rest, and neither
were the violence and unrest leading up to the Council of Ephesus.13
Eutyches: Letters Read and Not Read
Cyril was to find an unlikely champion in the person of the monk Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople. Eutyches initial success was at least
partly due to his capacity to represent himself in a favourable light in letters to the people who mattered, among them Leo of Rome. The pope had
received information from the abbot concerning his attempts to suppress
Nestorian resistance to his own views on the incarnation. Leo, unaware of
how radical were Eutyches views, congratulated him for his concern in this
9 E.g. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters; T. Graumann, Reading the First
Council of Ephesus (431), in eds. R. Price, Ma. Whitby, Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils
400700, Contexts 1 (Liverpool, 2009), pp. 2744; G.A. Bevan, The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428451 CE, DPhil. diss., Toronto, 2005. Cyrils Letter 2 to Nestorius
(Ep. 4, ACO 1/1, pp. 2528) and Letter 3 to Nestorius (Ep. 17, ACO 1/1, pp. 3342) are translated
by McGuckin, Cyril, pp. 262265, 266275; as is Nestorius reply to Cyrils Letter 2 (ACO 1/1,
pp. 2932), at pp. 364368.
10 See A. Louth, Why Did the Syrians Reject the Council of Chalcedon?, in eds. Price,
Whitby, Chalcedon in Context, pp. 107116.
11 The text of his Explanation of the Twelve Chapters, which includes the original twelve
anathemata, is translated in McGuckin, Cyril, pp. 282293.
12 See our treatment of Nestorius exile in Case-study 1 of Chapter 3 above.
13 T.E. Gregory, Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies in
the Fifth Century AD (Columbus, OH, 1979), pp. 100108. See also T. Sizgorich, Violence and
Belief in Late Antiquity: Militant Devotion in Christianity and Islam, Divinations: Rereading
Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia, PA, 2009), which goes down to the eighth century.
101
matter, and promised to pursue the elimination of the heinous poison of

Nestorianism.14 In December of the same year, Eutyches, by now condemned
by the synod of Constantinople held in November, appealed to Leo for help
(Ep. 21). Leo wrote at once to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, in some
embarrassment, asking why he had not been fully informed of the scandal (Ep. 23). Flavian had indeed informed the pope at the end of 448 (Ep.
22) but his letter was delayed in transit and crossed paths with Leos own
complaint. Thereupon Flavian sent a second letter to Leo (Ep. 26) outlining
again Eutyches double error, which he claimed was derived from the heresies of Apollinaris of Laodicea and the Roman gnostic Valentine. Eutyches
first error was his belief that before the incarnation Christ had two natures,
but only one nature after the incarnation. Eutyches second erroneous doctrine, as described by Flavian, was that Christ assumed a body that was not of
the same nature as a human body.15 Leos reply came in the form of a lengthy
letter (Ep. 28), which was to be dubbed the Tome to Flavian.16
Council of Ephesus II (449)
Around the same time as the arrival of Flavians second letter of complaint
about Eutyches to Leo, in May 449, Theodosius II convened an ecumenical
council to investigate Eutyches claims. The Second Council of Ephesus
was to be presided over by Dioscorus of Alexandria, a Eutychian supporter
and opponent of the patriarch of Constantinople. Leos Tome to Flavian,
composed on 13 June 448, was presented by two papal legates and was
supposed to be read aloud to the gathering of bishops at Ephesus in August
449. Dioscorus, however, prohibited its presentation. In the course of the
council, Flavian was deposed as patriarch of Constantinople, and Dioscorus
supporter Anatolius appointed in his stead. Flavian was apparently mauled
so badly afterwards that he died on his way to exile.17 Leo was furious at the
outcome of the council, denouncing it as a den of thieves (Latrocinium).
14
Leo Mag., Ep. 20, 1 June 448; ACO 2/2.4, p. 3.

Flavian, Ep. 2 ad Leonem = Ep. 26, PL 54, 743B745B. Since Christs body was not of
human substance, it was neither consubstantial with other humans nor with the woman
who bore him according to the flesh, according to Flavian.
16 The version of the Tome to Flavian presented in Schwartz is that preserved in the Acts of
the Council of Chalcedon: ACO 2/2.1, pp. 2433; trans. B. Neil, Leo the Great, The Early Church
Fathers (London, New York, 2009), pp. 96103. It is uncertain whether Flavian actually read
it before his untimely death.
17 On the episode see Chadwick, The Exile and Death of Flavian, pp. 1734.
15
102
chapter five
The appellation the Robber synod was quickly adopted by the losing side,
and the Tome to Flavian had to wait another two years for a proper hearing.
Letters between the sees of Constantinople and Rome reveal that the
relationship between the two, always fraught, degenerated rapidly after the
council of 449. Theodosius II, who had upheld the decisions of the Robber
Synod, refused to reopen the matter. In what he mistakenly believed to be
a diplomatically-worded letter, Leo asked Theodosius to make a statement
of orthodox belief and circulate it among the churches, and requested an
ecumenical council to be held in Italy to resolve the question of opposition
to Chalcedon.18 Fate intervened to prevent what would have been a volcanic
eruption from Constantinople. In mid-450, before Leos letter arrived at the
eastern imperial court, Theodosius met his death in a riding accident. The
new emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheriathe sister of Theodosius
were initially very well disposed towards Rome and Leo in particular, and
wished to uphold his condemnation of Eutyches through the convening of
a new council in the East. A new era of rapprochement between East and
West seemed about to dawn.
In May of the following year Marcian and Pulcheria sent out a summons
to all bishops of major sees to attend the Council of Chalcedon. Valentinian III and Marcian jointly requested that a council be held at Constantinople to remove every impious error, with the bishop of Rome (Leo I)
as its author.19 While some 370 bishops made the journey to Chalcedon, as
we know from the subscriptions to the council acta, the bishop of Rome
was not amongst them. Instead he forwarded the letter he had sent earlier
to Flavian of Constantinople (Ep. 28).
The Tome of Leo
The main achievement of the Tome was its succinct formulation of the
unique relationship of unity between the two natures of Christ, while avoiding use of the word one.20 Christ had a human form (by which we understand nature) and a divine form in such a way that each form performs
what is proper to it in communion with the other, with the Word accomplishing what is proper to the Word and the flesh fulfilling what is proper
18
Leo Mag., Ep. 69; PL 54, 892.

Valentinian III and Marcian to Leo Mag., Ep. 73; PL 54, 900AB. Trans. Neil, Leo the Great,
pp. 4243.
20 Except of course in relation to the single person of Christ, e.g. joining in one person
(Leo Mag., Ep. 28.3).
19
103
to the flesh (Ep. 28.2). This formula trod the middle ground between the
two extremes of one nature christology where the humanity of Christ was
dissolved in the hypostatic union (Eutychianism), and the teaching of two
distinct persons in Christ, the human and the divine, each with their own
nature (Nestorianism). It should be noted however that neither Nestorius
nor Nestorianism is specifically mentioned in this letter. The formula also
seemed to be close enough to Cyril of Alexandrias formula one incarnate
nature of God the Word to satisfy all but the most extreme Cyrillians, the
followers of Eutyches in Egypt and Palestine. According to Leos formulation the natures were joined without confusion or mingling on the one
hand (Eutychianism), and on the other hand without division and separation (Nestorianism). The Tome was to take on a life of its own through its
inclusion in the acta of the Council of Chalcedon, where it was judged to
be compatible with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril. Eutyches, out of concern
to show that his exposition of the relationship between the two natures in
the one person of Christ was grounded firmly in tradition, both biblical and
patristic, had adduced a series of patristic textual witnesses, which included
letters of Popes Julius, Felix I and Celestine. These were appended to the
Tome.21 The transmission of these letters along with excerpts of other texts
in the acta of Chalcedon is the only means by which most of these texts survive.
The Tome remained a standard for the bishops of Constantinople (including the exiled former bishop of Constantinople, Nestorius) and Rome in the
christological controversies of the next two centuries. However, it was subject to intense criticism in the decade following Chalcedon.
Chalcedon and Its Aftermath22
While the Tome satisfied the imperial couple, who were looking for a basis
for unity between the opposing factions in the East, many in Syria, Palestine
and Egypt were not satisfied with it or the Council which acclaimed it. Nor
was Leo satisfied with the acta of Chalcedon, due to its reinforcement of
the principle that New Rome was the equal of Old Rome in ecclesiastical
21
ACO 2/2.1, pp. 3542.

For the acta of the council see ACO 2/2, parts 1, 2; trans. Price, Gaddis, Acts of the Council
of Chalcedon, vols. 2 and 3. On the council and its reception see in general Grillmeier, CCT 2,
part 1, pp. 93235.
22
104
chapter five
affairs.23 For this reason Leo refused to ratify the acta with his signature, in
the knowledge that written endorsement by the patriarchs of Constantinople and Rome was crucial to any councils claim to ecumenical status. The
opponents of Chalcedon regarded the resolution reached at Chalcedon as a
betrayal of both Cyril and Eutyches. Much of their energetic opposition was
focussed on discrediting the Tome. In Palestine, and later in Alexandria, the
monastic reaction to the Definition of Faith and the canons approved at Chalcedon was violent. In a letter to Julian of Cos,24 Leo denounces the false
monks for the riots that spread from Jerusalem to the whole of Palestine
after Theodosius (also a monk) returned from Chalcedon supporting onenature christology. Anti-Chalcedonian monks had killed Severian, bishop of
Scythopolis, and threatened to do the same to Juvenal, bishop of Jerusalem,
who had saved his skin by fleeing into exile. Leo roundly condemned their
violence and ignorance, likening them to soldiers of the anti-Christ.25
In a more conciliatory letter to the Palestinian monks in the following
year (Ep. 124), Leo gives an explicit condemnation of Nestorius. In a significant departure from Letter 28, Leo reverted in Letter 124 to his original,
pre-449, terminology of substances in Christ, since talk of two natures in
Christ might appear to have Nestorian resonances, if it were read as implying two persons in Christ.26 Leos Letter 124 was later reworked as Letter 165
to Emperor Leo, a document which came to be known as the Second Tome,
and which reinstates the nature terminology of the Tome.27 The Second
Tome is curiously preserved in an anti-Chalcedonian compilation of episcopal letters that includes many letters of Cyril, Nestorius, John of Antioch,
Theodoret and others,28 along with Leos long list of excerpts from various
23
Canon 28; ed. Tanner, p. 100.

Julian acted an occasional legate to Constantinople, not an agent of the pope in permanent residence there. His knowledge of Greek was of great advantage to the bishop of Rome.
25 Ep. 109.2 (= Ep. 105; ACO 2/4, p. 137, 2224): superbi autem et inquieti, qui sacerdotum contemptu et iniuriis gloriantur, non serui Christi, sed antichristi milites sunt habendi
maximeque in suis sunt praepositis humiliandi, qui inperitam multitudinem ad defensionem
suae peruersitatis instigant. But these insolent disturbers (of the peace), who boast of their
insults and injuries to priests, are to be considered not servants of Christ, but soldiers of the
Antichrist, and must be chiefly brought low through their leaders, who incite the ignorant
mob to defend their insubordination. Our translation.
26 P.L. Barclift, The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Greats Christological Vocabulary,
Church History 66/2 (1997), pp. 221239 at 227 n. 219.
27 N.W. James, Leo the Great and Prosper of Aquitaine: a Fifth-century Pope and His
Advisor, JTS ns 44/2 (1993), pp. 554584, at 557558.
28 See E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431: eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit
Kaiser Zenos, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-philolog.
und hist. Klasse 32/6 (Munich, 1927).
24
105
authors to demonstrate that what he had said in the Tome had already been
said before, in both Latin and Greek.29
Unfortunately Pope Leos letters did not prevent more violence in Alexandria over Patriarch Proterius adherence to Chalcedon. Proterius, ordained
in place of Dioscorus in 452 after the latters deposition at Chalcedon, was
charged with Nestorianism by the supporters of Cyril.30 Many felt that Proterius had betrayed the memory of his predecessor by omitting his name
from the diptychs. The anti-Chalcedonians had to bide their time until the
death of Emperor Marcian in early 457, whereupon, under the leadership of
Timothy Aelurus and his associate Peter Mongus, they besieged the Alexandrian patriarch in church on Easter Day. Proterius was put to the sword in
a baptistery and his corpse dragged around the city streets on a rope before
being dismembered and burnt, after which Timothy Aelurus was illegitimately installed as patriarch. This is the account presented by Evagrius,31 and
supported by two letters of Pope Leo.32 According to Liberatus of Carthage,
Proterius died on Holy Thursday, 28 March 457, twelve days after Timothy
Aelurus had been chosen as patriarch.33
Emperor Leo I lost no time in composing a questionnaire that was sent
to all metropolitans of the East and West together with some prominent
eastern monastic figures (457/8). Known as the Codex encyclius (CEn), this
document asked the metropolitans to convene their suffragans and report
on their reception of Chalcedon and the validity or otherwise of the consecration of Timothy Aelurus as patriarch of Alexandria.34 The 34 letters of
reply, signed by some 280 bishops and monks and possibly representing 470
of those canvassed, constitute a powerful testimony to the sovereignty of
the letter in imperial and ecclesiastical interventions in religious conflict.35
While most bishops expressed their agreement with the events of 451 and
29 The florilegium to Ep. 165 (ACO 2/4, pp. 119131) included excerpts from Hilary of
Poitiers, On the Trinity; Athanasius, Ep. ad Epictetum; Ambrose, De fide and De incarnatione
Domini; Ambrose, Ep. 46 (though not in all manuscripts); Augustine, Ep. 137, Ep. 187, Serm.
78; John Chrysostom, De ascensione, Serm. de cruce; Theophilus of Alexandria (as quoted
by Jerome, Ep. 98); Cyril of Alexandria, De incarnatione, Ep. 2 ad Nestorium; Gregory of
Nazianzus, Or. 13.
30 Leo Mag., Ep. 129.2 (= Ep. 74; ACO 2/4, p. 85).
31 Evagrius, HE 2.8; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, pp. 5559.
32 Leo Mag., Epp. 149 and 150; ACO 2/4, pp. 9798.
33 Liberatus of Carthage, Breviarium 15; ed. J. Garnier (Paris, 1675; repr. Piscataway, NJ,
2010); cited by C.B. Horn, Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-century Palestine:
The Career of Peter the Iberian, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, 2006), pp. 9596.
34 Authoritative on the CEn is Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, pp. 195235.
35 Text in Latin translation in ACO 2/5, pp. 998.
106
chapter five
responded negatively to the case of Timothy Aelurus, the overriding sentiment in the letters is belief in the imperial church and the pre-eminence
of the Council of Nicaea in 325.36 This dossier is the subject of Case-study 1
below.
After replacing Proterius, Timothy Aelurus had broken off communion
with Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, denouncing all the pro-Chalcedonian bishops of Alexandria. It appears that Timothy went on to ask the
emperor to rescind the canons of Chalcedon, and to summon a new council.37 In 460 Emperor Leo finally expelled Timothy from Alexandria. Even
after he had been exiled to Gangra, however, Timothy sought out his supporters in Constantinople.
Meanwhile, in Antioch religious conflict and intrigue associated with
the reception of Chalcedon were causing violence and instability in the
patriarchal office. For the tumultuous events from about 471 to the end of
Emperor Zenos reign in 491, however, we have no evidence from episcopal letters and must rely on the church historians and chroniclers.38 Zeno,
himself the son-in-law of Emperor Leo I and probably an anti-Chalcedonian
like his people, the Isaurians, came to Antioch as magister militum per Orientem in 469 in the company of a priest called Peter the Fuller. Peters
name was to be inextricably linked with the church of Antioch during this
period and beyond. After usurping the patriarchal throne of the Chalcedonian incumbent, Martyrius, Peter was installed instead, inaugurating the
first of no fewer than four of his non-consecutive episcopates (469470,
470471, 475476 and 484491[?]). The bishops who held the see in the intervening years alternated between adherents and opponents of Chalcedon
and one of them, Bishop Stephen, a Chalcedonian, was murdered by antiChalcedonian clergy in 479 when he was attacked in the baptistery of the
church of the Forty Martyrs, stabbed to death with sharp reeds, and thrown
into the Orontes.39
36
See further Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, pp. 204211.

From Leo Is letters to Basil of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Euxitheus, vicar of Thessalonica, Peter of Corinth and Luke of Dyrrachium (Epp. 149, 150).
38 See the account in G. Downey, A History of Antioch from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest
(Princeton, 1961), pp. 484502 for the sources.
39 For the evidence of the murder see Downey, A History of Antioch, 489490; on the
church of the Forty Martyrs see Mayer, Allen, The Churches of Syrian Antioch, pp. 50, 153, 170,
185, 204.
37
107
The Acacian Schism40

The lead-up to the Acacian schism began with the return from exile to
the see of Alexandria by the anti-Chalcedonian bishop, Timothy Aelurus,
c. 475.41 Timothy had spent sixteen years in exile, until he was recalled by
the usurper Basiliscus, who took the throne from Zeno in 475. As a general in 468, Basiliscus had led the unsuccessful military campaign against
the Vandals in North Africa. One of his first acts as emperor was to reverse
Zenos religious policy of support for the Chalcedonian bishop of Alexandria, Timothy Salofaciolus, by publishing an edict known as the Encyclical.42
Timothy was driven into exile and Timothy Aelurus recalled. Aelurus travelled to Constantinople to petition the emperor for a new council which
would overturn the decisions of Chalcedon. However, Zenos return from
exile and overthrow of Timothys patron Basiliscus in August 476 cut short
his comeback. Four years after being ejected from Alexandria, Timothy Salofaciolus was restored permanently to the see of Alexandria.
Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople (471489), had initially condemned
the Eutychian heretics, led by Timothy Aelurus. But in 482, the patriarch
turned the tables and supported the heretical candidate Peter Mongus for
the see of Alexandria, against the orthodox John of Talai. Acacius persuaded
Zeno to issue an imperial edict, the Henotikon, a series of doctrinal statements designed to effect union between the warring factions of the eastern
churches. The Council of Chalcedon was not rejected in this document,
but was passed over in silence. Acacius position was considered untenable
by those committed to the Chalcedonian settlement, especially the Roman
bishops. The looming schism consumed most of Pope Simplicius (475483)
attention, to judge by his letters, 17 of which (out of 21) were directed to the
East over the matter.43
40 For relevant documents from the Collectio Veronensis see E. Schwartz, Publizistische
Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Abt. NF 10/4 (Munich, 1934), pp. 3157.
41 See P. Blaudeau, Timothe Aelure et la direction ecclsiale de lEmpire post-chalcdonien, Revue des tudes byzantines 54 (1996), pp. 107133; idem, Rome contre Alexandrie?
Linterprtation pontificale de l enjeu monophysite (de l mergence de la controverse eutychienne au schisme acacien 448484), Adamantius 12 (2006), pp. 140216.
42 On this document, the Antencyclical which rescinded it, the Henotikon (treated below),
and related documents see Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431. Cf. Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1,
p. 28, for the tenor of the collection.
43 See the Appendix listing papal letters sent to the East from 448 to 494, in Blaudeau,
Rome contre Alexandrie?, p. 215.
108
chapter five
Simplicius successor Felix III (483492) was equally engrossed in the

controversy. After a furious exchange of letters with Zeno and Acacius in
the first year of his pontificate (Epp. 16), he excommunicated Acacius in
a brief statement of 28 July 484 (Ep. 7), and was in turn excommunicated
by the patriarch of Constantinople, starting a schism that was to last until
519. Acacius short-lived successor, Fravitta (490), proved no more amenable
to Roman demands than his predecessor. Likewise, papal lettersone to
the people and clergy of Constantinople; one to the priests and archimandrites Rufinus and Thalassius; and another to the other priests and monks
in Constantinople and Bithyniawent unheeded. In a letter to the bishops of Egypt, Felix lamented the on-going rioting in Alexandria and murder of Proterius, asking them to condemn their new patriarch and to support the deposed pro-Chalcedonian clergy.44 Felix also sought the support
of the bishops of Thessalonica, Thebes, Libya and Pentapolis, but the issue
remained unresolved at his death in 492, even though Acacius by then was
also dead. Pope Gelasius (492496) took the same hard line against the
former patriarch as his predecessors. Under the protection of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric, Gelasius insisted on the condemnation of Acacius
as the condition for union between Rome and Constantinople, rejecting a
proposed compromise in 494 which would have allowed for spiritual and
canonical autonomy in theological and disciplinary matters.
The support of the bishops of the northern province of Dardania, in
the contested diocese of Illyricum, was seen as crucial for the success of
Romes bid to have Acacius and the Henotikon condemned. In a letter of
493, Gelasius threatened the bishops of Dardania with excommunication
if they persisted in communion with heretics, instructing them not to recite
their names in the liturgy, and to exclude from their number anyone who
did so.45 It seems his threats were successful: the Dardanian bishops replied
that they gladly accepted the Roman condemnation of Eutyches, Peter,
Acacius and their followers.46 Gelasius admonished the bishops of Dardania
and Illyricum to beware the tricks of the bishop of Thessalonica who did
not deserve communion with the Holy See, since he refused to omit the
name of Acacius from the diptychs.47 A further letter, to the Dardanian
bishops and the bishops of Syriawho are simply designated as episcopi
44
45
46
47
Felix III, Ep. 9; ed. Thiel, pp. 250251.

Gelasius, Ep. 7; ed. Thiel, pp. 335337.
Ep. 11; ed. Thiel, pp. 348349.
Ep. 18; ed. Thiel, pp. 383385.
109
orientalesfurnished a dogmatic statement as to why Acacius was properly

condemned by the apostolic see.48
Throughout the religious controversies of the fifth century, Popes Leo,
Simplicius, Felix and Gelasius resorted to the same rhetorical techniques,
bullying and cajoling by turn, demonizing their opponents and sermonizing
about their own God-given authority over anyone who would listen.49 The
trouble with letters, though, is that it is hard to tell when the recipient is
not listening, or perhaps not even bothering to read to the end of a carefully
prepared argument, precariously poised on a scaffolding of scriptural and
patristic exempla. A prime example of the popes extreme indifference to
the sensitivities of their audience is Letter 1 of Gelasius to the Syrian bishops,
probably written while he was still a deacon under Felix in 488 or 489,50 and
full of the brash posturing and legalistic sophistry one would expect of a new
appointment to the curia. Even if the Latin (or its Greek translation) did not
pose a problem for Zeno, the imperious tone certainly would have been hard
to swallow. By the end of the sixth century, the popes simply stopped writing
letters to the East, as they realised that relations with Byzantium could only
be improved by avoiding direct communication.51
The crisis over the Acacian schism was inextricably linked with the conflict between bishops of Rome and Constantinople over their authority in
relation to each other. The expression of the Constantinopolitan desire for
equality with Old Rome in Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon had
resulted in the bishop of Romes refusal to endorse the acta. Gelasius imperious address to Emperor Anastasius in 494 made a strong claim for Roman
supremacy over the universal church. In Letter 12 he introduced the famous
48 Ep. 26 to the bishops of Dardania (1 February 495); Ep. 27 to the bishops of the East
(495).
49 On the changing rhetoric of authority in this period see C. Leyser, Asceticism and
Authority from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford, 2000).
50 Ed. Thiel, pp. 287311; see Thiels comments, p. 285. Trans. Neil, Allen, Letters of Gelasius I
(forthcoming). On the authorship of the letter see also Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, p. 293.
For stylistic considerations in the question of Gelasius authorship see H. Koch, Gelasius im
kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorgnger, der Ppste Simplicius (468483) und Felix III. (483
492). Ein Beitrag zur Sprache des Papstes Gelasius I. (492496) und frher Papstbriefe (Munich,
1935), pp. 5358.
51 C. Sotinel, Emperors and Popes in the Sixth Century. The Western View, in ed. M. Maas,
The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 267290. Gelasius
seems to have taken a particularly negative view towards things Greek, a view later shared
by Gregory I: see A.J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on
Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, 590752 A.D. (Lanham, MD, 2007),
p. 11.
110
chapter five
two powers theory, of church and king, while begging Anastasius not to let
the church be torn apart by the Acacian dispute.52 It seems that Anastasius
was not easily cowed, however, as no change was made in the eastern
position on Acacius or the Henotikon. On 13 March 495 a Roman synod
offered absolution in the basilica of St Peter to Misenus, a bishop who
had openly supported the cause of Acacius.53 Some 45 bishops and other
notables signed the acta of the Roman synod, in an action that was a sure
snub to Constantinople. In 495 or 496, in response to a legation from the
bishops of Syria about the parlous state of the eastern church, Gelasius again
sought the support of the Syrian bishops, asking them to keep faith with the
Roman church (Ep. 43).54
The stand-off with Constantinople continued under Pope Anastasius II
(496498), although the Roman bishop devoted four letters to bringing
about peace with Constantinople. The most famous was his first effort, in
which he tried to make the emperor remove the name of Acacius from the
diptychs.55 At the same time as he was attempting to persuade the emperor,
Anastasius II was trying to alleviate the threat of violence from Gaul after
the first military successes of the Merovingians led by Clovis. In a letter
to Clovis, the bishop of Rome congratulates the king on his conversion
to Christianity (albeit perhaps from homoean Christianity, which is not
mentioned), flattering him by appealing to his spiritual role as protector
of the church.56 This is a good instance of heresy being ignored by Roman
bishops when their safety was at stake.
During the pontificate of Symmachus the eastern bishops continued to
petition Rome over the schism,57 prompting a single letter of replywhich
52 Gelasius, Ep. 12.2; ed. Thiel, pp. 350351. Trans. in Neil, Allen, Letters of Gelasius I,
forthcoming.
53 Ep. 30.2; ed. Thiel, pp. 438439.
54 Gelasius, Ep. 43 to the bishops of Syria; see also Ep. 7 to the bishops of Dardania; Ep.
10 to Succonius in Constantinople; Ep. 18 to the bishops of Dardania and Illyricum; Ep. 9 to
Abbot Natalis.
55 Ep. 1 to Anastasius I; ed. Thiel, pp. 615623. On Anastasius Is ecclesiastical policies
see Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 197200; F.K. Haarer, Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and
Monographs 46 (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 132136; M. Meier, Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des
Byzantinischen Reiches (Stuttgart, 2009), pp. 116117. The latter two works can also be consulted profitably for the reign of Emperor Anastasius I in general.
56 Anastasius II, Ep. 2; ed. Thiel, p. 624. See our discussion of Clovis baptism in Chapter 5,
Arianism above.
57 Ep. 12 to Symmachus, penned by Dorotheus of Thessalonica in 512; ed. Thiel, pp. 709
717.
111
may have been penned by Ennodius of Pavia.58 The letter was a blunt refusal
ever to admit to his communion those who would not divorce themselves
from association with the condemned, namely Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus and Acacius. Symmachus energies were largely
consumed by the Laurentian schism ensuing from his disputed election,59
and he did not concern himself greatly with affairs of theological import
in the eastern churches. His successor Hormisdas (514523) took a much
greater interest in resolving the stalemate, and negotiations were resumed
in 515, although Emperor Anastasius took the initiative at this stage, not
Hormisdas.60 Hormisdas sent two embassies to Anastasius, with the backing
of King Theodoric. The second embassy carried nineteen letters confirming the faith as it was defined by the Council of Chalcedon, and condemning Eutychianism. Orthodox monks were secretly employed to disseminate
these letters in the East. Anastasius successor Justin proved willing to reach
a compromise with Hormisdas, acting for Theodoric, and the schism ended
in 519, although the anti-Chalcedonian factions led by the excommunicated
Severus of Antioch remained strong.
Western Heresies
Arianism
The term Arianism is used here to distinguish the Nicene Christianity
of the mainstream church from the homoean Christianity adopted by followers of Arius, an Alexandrian priest (313316). First condemned at the
Council of Nicaea in 325, the sect was given a huge boost by the support
of Emperor Constantius II (337361), which only the concerted efforts of
several eastern councils could counter. Even Felix II, bishop of Rome (355
365) enjoyed a brief spell of Arianism before changing his mind. The LP
only recounts that Felix condemned Constantius as a heretic and was subsequently beheaded.61 After the renewed condemnation of Arianism at the
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381, letters of patriarchs of Constantinople record hardly any Arian activity, although Arians remained in
58
Symmachus, Ep. 13 ad orientales, dated 8 Oct 512; ed. Thiel, pp. 717722.
Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, gives the best recent treatment of these events.
60 Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles, p. 97.
61 LP 1, p. 211. Given that Constantius died four years before Felix he could hardly have
been instrumental in the popes death; cf. LP 1, pp. 207208, where Felix is said to have been
deposed and to have died peacefully.
59
112
chapter five
the capital until at least 428.62 It remained largely a western problem in the
fifth and sixth centuries, with the advent of the Germanic tribes into Gaul,
Italy, North Africa and Spain. Augustine expressed his grave concerns in Letters 185, 238, 239 and 241. The arrival of Arian Vandals in Africa caused a
knock-on effect in neighbouring eastern provinces, as we saw above in our
discussion of Theodoret of Cyrrhus many letters of recommendation for
African refugees.63
Non-Arian Christians in North Africa, especially in Africa proconsularis,
were persecuted under the Arian Vandal king Geiseric from 429.64 The catholic episcopate was not restored in North Africa for 74 years. Fulgentius,
ordained bishop of Ruspe c. 507, was exiled with other catholic bishops
by the Vandal king Thrasamund to Sardinia. He was permitted to return
to Carthage to dispute with the king over Arianism but then sent into a
second exile on Sardinia for another four years.65 When in 523 Thrasamund
died and was replaced as Vandal king by the more favourably inclined
Hilderic, Fulgentius and the other exiled bishops in Sardinia were allowed
to return to Africa. After the Byzantine reconquest of North Africa, Justinian
issued an edict proscribing Arians along with Donatists and Jews in 535.66 In
Alexandria the patriarch Cyril used his Festal Letters to attack Arians, among
other heretical foes.67 Agapitus of Rome (535536) wrote two letters on the
Arian heresy in North Africa soon after his consecration in May 535. In the
first,68 he congratulates the African bishops on avoiding the heretics and
replies to the questions they had asked his predecessor John II.69 In another
letter of the same year Agapitus encouraged Reparatus of Carthage to make
known to others what he had written to him so that no one could plead
62 Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople (428431), violently evicted Arians (as well as
Quartodecimans, Novatianists and Macedonians) from their churches in Constantinople as
part of his crusade against heresy in the imperial capital.
63 Theodoret, Epp. 11, 12, 22, 23, 2936, 52, 53 and 70. See Chapter 3, Case-study 4.
64 P. Heather, Christianity and the Vandals in the Reign of Geiseric, in eds. J. Drinkwater,
B. Salway, Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends and Pupils,
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement (London, 2007), pp. 137146.
65 See Lapeyre, Saint Fulgence, pp. 156159. See Case-study 2 on Fulgentius in exile in
Chapter 3 above.
66 Justinian, Novella 37.5 and 37.8, issued on 1 August 535; eds. R. Schoell et al., Corpus iuris
civilis, vol. 3, Novellae, 13th ed. (Berlin, 1963), p. 245.
67 E.g. Festal Letter 8.3; eds. vieux et al., vol. 2, p. 86, 81104 (PG 77, 564C565A); cf. trans.
in Amidon, OKeefe, pp. 144145. See further Wessel, Cyril of Alexandria, pp. 3945.
68 Ep. 3 to Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, Florentinianus, Datianus and other African
bishops (CPL 1615), ed. Gnther, CSEL 35, 330347 = PL 66, cols. 4345. Date: fifth Ides of
October or November 535.
69 CPL 1614.
113
ignorance of what the apostolic see had said about the catholic faith. The
strategy of making a local head bishop responsible for disseminating Roman
views on a given subject was used frequently.70
In Italy, the seriousness of the Arian threat first became obvious upon the
arrival of the Gothic troops led by Alaric in 408, culminating in August 410
with a three-day siege that saw the wholesale destruction of the city. In the
430s until the 450s it continued to loom large on Roman bishops horizons,
with the invasion of Northern Italy by Attila the Hun and the siege of the
city by the Vandal Gaiseric in 455. Pope Leos preaching shows that he was
concerned that the people of Rome embrace orthodox Christianity and not
the Arianism of the Goths and Vandals.71 In his letters, however, the Arians
barely make an appearance. One exception is his comparison of Priscillians
with Arians, according to a typically spurious genealogy of heresy.72 Similarly, during the Acacian schism, the letter of a Roman synod stated that
Peter Fuller was guilty of the heresies of Valentinus, Mani, Arius, Sabellius, Apollinaris and Eutyches.73 Compare this with Gelasius pragmatism in
his dealings with the Arian Ostrogothic leader Theodoric, fifty years later.
For Roman bishops from 493 onwards, Arianism was the elephant in the
room, never mentioned in correspondence with their new masters. Gelasius did however compose two now-lost books against Arius, according to
LP.74 Amory argues that Theodosius status as an Arian was not so worrying to Gelasius as the monophysitism espoused in the Henotikon, and that
it was partly Theodosius reluctance to force Gelasius to adhere to Anastasius Is position in the Acacian schism that made him tolerable to Gelasius
and later Symmachus and Hormisdas.75
70
E.g. Leo Is letters to Italian bishops on Pelagianism, to be discussed in the next section.
E.g. Serm. 84; ed. Chavasse, CCSL 138A, pp. 525526, on the anniversary of the invasion
of Rome by Alaric in 410 or Geiseric in 455. Leo attributes the salvation of the city to the
triumph of saints over demons, omitting to mention that Alaric/Geiseric was a Christian of
sorts. See the discussion in Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 811 and 118119.
72 Leo I, Ep. 15.2 to Turibius, bishop of Astorga; trans. Neil, Leo the Great, p. 85: In this they
favour also the error of the Arians, who say that the Father is prior to the Son, because he was
once without the Son and then he began to be the Father when he begot the Son.
73 Felix III, Ep. 3 to Peter Fuller, bishop of Antioch, from the Roman Synod (note that in
n. 2 in PL 58, col. 903D this letter and the one following are attributed to Felix predecessor
Simplicius).
74 LP 1, p. 255.
75 On Gelasius response to Theodorics activity as an Arian general from 489498 see
P. Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489554, Cambridge Studies in Medieval
Life and Thought (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 196203; on Symmachus, pp. 203206; on Hormisdas
response, pp. 206216.
71
114
chapter five
Symmachus of Rome sent a letter of consolation to exiled bishops in

Africa, where he informs them that he is sending relics of Sts Nazarius and
Romanus as they had requested in letters to his deacon Hormisdas.76 He also
sent money and clothing to exiled bishops in the Arian sees of Africa and
Sardinia.77 The Byzantine victories in North Africa, and over the Ostrogothic
rule of Italy, in Justinians wars of the mid-sixth century brought Arian
influence over Rome under control for a short time. It is in this context that
Agapitus wrote his letters to the bishops of North Africa, mentioned above.
However, the Lombard invasions from 568 onwards brought a renewed
Arian presence into northern and central Italy. The contest between Arians
and catholics for control of individual sees in Lombard Italy continued well
past the pontificate of Gregory the Great. In Spoleto, for example, the Arian
Lombard bishop, who had been unable to obtain a church from the local
catholics, tried to seize the church of St Paul but was miraculously blinded.78
In Gaul, many Gallo-Roman bishops remained opposed to the Arianism
of their new overlords, the Visigothic kings. Around 458 Faustus of Riez was
elevated as bishop of Rhegium (Provence) but was later banned by Eurich
(477485). The see of Limoges, which had long been vacant under the rule
of the Arian king, welcomed back a catholic bishop, Ruricius, only after
Eurichs death. Avitus (c. 490518) was raised to the episcopate in Vienne
c. 490 in Burgundy, then still predominantly Arian. His attempts to convert
Gundobad to the catholic faith failed but he was able to influence Sigismund, Gundobads successor, to embrace orthodoxy. Avitus annual conversations with the Arians and other interactions are recorded in four letters.79
The Arian hold was strengthened with the arrival of Franks, until the baptism of the Merovingian king Clovis (481511) into the orthodox Christianity
of his wife Clothilde. In a letter to Clovis, Anastasius II, bishop of Rome, congratulates the king on his conversion to Christianity (perhaps from Arianism, which is not mentioned), flattering him by appealing to his spiritual role
as protector of the church.80 We may compare this with Avitus of Viennes
letter to Clovis, on the occasion of his baptism, in which the bishop makes
76
Ep. 11; ed. Thiel, pp. 708709 (507512ce).

LP 1, p. 263.
78 Dial. 3.29. 24; eds., trans. A. de Vog, P. Antin, Dialogorum libri IV de miraculis patrum
italicorum, SC 260 (Paris, 1979), pp. 376378. This episode is discussed by C. Ricci, Gregorys
Missions to the Barbarians, in eds. Neil, Dal Santo, A Companion to Gregory the Great,
forthcoming. Ricci also covers the missions to the Franks and Visigoths.
79 Epp. 23, 31, 77, 86; cf. Epp. 7, 28.
80 Anastasius II, Ep. 2; ed. Thiel, p. 624.
77
115
it clear that Clovis has chosen the better part in adopting catholicism.81 Clovis was successful in driving the Visigoths out of southern Gaul into Spain,
which remained an Arian stronghold until the conversion of King Reccared
(586601) in 589.82 In the same year, the Council of Toledo sanctioned the
official acceptance of catholicism by the Visigoths. Reccareds father Leovigild (568586) was a strong supporter of Arianism, and Reccareds brother
had become a martyr for the orthodox cause.
Pelagianism in North Africa, Italy and Gaul
In the early fifth century the monk Pelagius doctrine of the possibility of
human perfection found an enthusiastic body of supporters amongst the
Roman aristocracy. With his denial of original sin and strong emphasis on
the freedom of human will and the ascetic way of life, including the total
renunciation of private property,83 Pelagius was especially appealing in the
context of the Roman sieges from 408 to 410, when many were forced to give
up their properties in Rome and flee for safety to North Africa, thus making
a virtue of necessity. Melania the Younger and her husband Pinianus were
but two of the most famous members of the Roman aristocracy who found
the Pelagian emphasis on human co-operation with divine grace appealing,
causing Augustine to send impassioned pleas to the couple by letter to
maintain their social responsibilities as evergetists to the church. To some,
especially Augustine, the Pelagian doctrines of justification by faith and the
human capacity to achieve perfection through acts of virtue appeared to
81 Avitus, Ep. 46; ed. Peiper, MGH AA 6/2, p. 75. Shanzer and Wood, Avitus of Vienne, p. 364,
comment: At the very least we can conclude from the opening of the letter that Clovis had
been influenced by Arianism. Possibly he was an Arian catechumen, as argued by D. Shanzer,
Dating the Baptism of Clovis: The Bishop of Vienne vs the Bishop of Tours, Early Medieval
Europe 7/1 (1998), pp. 2957. Clovis conversion is traditionally dated to his victory over the
Alemanni at the battle of Tolbiac (Vogliacum) in 496, on the basis of Gregory of Tours account
in Historia francorum 2.30; eds. B. Krusch, W. Levison, MGH SS rerum Merovingicarum 1/1
(Hannover, 1937), pp. 7576. Shanzer, Dating the Baptism, p. 44, argues from Avitus Ep.
46 that a more probable dating of his baptism is the immediate aftermath of the FrancoVisigothic war of 507, perhaps in 508.
82 Gregory the Great, Reg. 1.41 to Leander of Seville; ed. Norberg, CCSL 140, p. 48; Ep. 9.229
to Reccared; ed. Norberg, CCSL 140A, pp. 805809.
83 As set out in the anonymous Pelagian tract De divitiis; PL Supplementum 1, 13801418;
trans. B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 174211. Once attributed
to Pelagius, or a British follower of Pelagius who had emigrated to Sicily, De divitiis is now
thought to have been written by a native of Italy or Gaul: Rees, Pelagius, pp. 1617, 171172.
The manuscript ascription to Sixtus episcopus et martyr probably refers to Sixtus III, a former
Pelagian but later bishop of Rome, and may even be accurate.
116
chapter five
undermine the doctrine of salvation by divine grace. The anonymous author

of a tract-length letter to the consecrated virgin Demetrias addressed headon the threat Pelagianism posed to the social fabric of the Roman senatorial
class. De vera humilitate was composed in the 430s to convince the wealthy
young woman not to abandon her support for the institutionalised church
but to use her inherited wealth for its benefit.84 The rival correspondence
of Augustine and Pelagius with Demetrias, her mother Juliana Aniciana
and her grandmother Proba, shows that the proper spiritual disposition
towards wealth was causing something of a crisis for the Roman Christian
aristocracy.85
Augustine wrote another three letters on the Pelagian crisis to fellow bishops (Ep. 186 to Paulinus of Nola, Ep. 187 to Dardanus and Ep. 194 to Sixtus III
of Rome), urging them to make pastoral care their primary concern, not the
pursuit of speculative theology.86 Further letters of Augustine on Pelagianism are treated above in Chapter 2.87
First condemned by the synod of Carthage (404), Pelagius was condemned again at Milevis (416), and the findings of these two African councils
were endorsed in letters of Pope Innocent I. Pelagius then appealed to Innocent for protection and approval of his teachings. Upon the death of Innocent, the Greek pope Zosimus (417418) took up the joint cause of Pelagius
and his associate Caelestius, and pronounced both men innocent of deviation from the catholic faith. The outraged African bishops led by Augustine
held another synod at Carthage in 418 and reinforced their condemnation
of both men and their teachings. Zosimus changed his tune, endorsed the
Synod of Carthage and declared Pelagian doctrines heretical in his encyclical Tractoria.88
84 Ed., trans. M.K.C. Krabbe, Epistula ad Demetriadem de vera humilitate. A Critical
Text and Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Washington, DC, 1965). See also
A. Kurdock, Demetrias ancilla dei: Anicia Demetrias and the Problem of the Missing Patron,
in eds. K. Cooper, J. Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage, pp. 190224; B. Neil, On True
Humility: an Anonymous Letter on Poverty and the Female Ascetic, in eds. W. Mayer, P. Allen,
L. Cross, Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church 4: The Spiritual Life (Strathfield, 2006),
pp. 233246.
85 Pelagius, Ep. ad Demetriadem; PL 30, 1545; trans. Rees, Pelagius, pp. 3570; Augustine
to Juliana, Ep. 188; NBA 23, pp. 176192; Augustine to Proba and Juliana on the occasion
of Demetrias consecration, Ep. 150; NBA 22, pp. 496498. See Rees, Pelagius, pp. 2935;
P.R.L. Brown, Augustine and a Crisis of Wealth in Late Antiquity, The Saint Augustine
Lecture 2004, Augustinian Studies 36 (2005), pp. 530.
86 See P. Descotes, Saint Augustin et la crise plagienne, Rvue dtudes augustiniennes
et patristiques 56 (2010), pp. 197227.
87 Augustine, Epp. 140 and 157. See Chapter 2, Hybrid Forms.
88 Three fragments are edited in PL 20, 693695. See O. Wermelinger, Rom und Pelagius:
117
The African bishops decision was confirmed by an imperial rescript of

Honorius in 418, which expelled Pelagians from Italy.89 The Pelagian cause
had been taken up in southern Italy by Julian, bishop of Eclanum (416/417
418),90 who rejected the Tractoria and attacked the anti-Pelagian camp, led
by Augustine, as enemies of marriage and holders of crypto-Manichean
views. Before the Council of Ephesus, Pelagianism had found some adherents in the East, under the protection of Nestorius. A year after Nestorius
ordination as patriarch and just as the storm of accusations of heresy was
about to break, Caelestius, Julian and several other Pelagian bishops sought
refuge in the imperial court in Constantinople. How far Nestorius was influenced by their views is indeterminableNestorius certainly never mentioned Pelagius by namebut he may well have regarded his enemies enemies as his friends. He certainly seemed well-disposed towards Caelestius,
writing him a letter of consolation upon his forced departure from Constantinople in 430 when Theodosius expelled all Pelagian clergy from the
East.91 A Latin translation of Nestorius letter to Caelestius formed part of
a dossier of anti-Pelagian texts made by Marius Mercator, the fifth-century
disciple and correspondent of Augustine. For Mercator, a staunch opponent
of Pelagius, it was a case of his enemys friends (the Nestorians) becoming
his enemies. It was Nestorius support for Pelagius rather than his doctrinal
aberrations that earned him the opprobrium of Pope Celestine I.92 Nestorius and Caelestius were condemned together in the acta of the Ecumenical
Council of Ephesus (431), though neither is mentioned by name. As Bark
eloquently put it, at this council, Celestine sacrificed Nestorius to Cyril and
Cyril agreed to the condemnation of the Pelagians, in whose teachings he
had previously shown no interest at all.93
die theologische Position der rmischen Bischfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411
432, Ppste und Papsttum 7 (Stuttgart, 1975); idem, Das Pelagiusdossier in der Tractoria des
Zosimus, Freiburger Zeitschrift fr Philosophie und Theologie 26 (1979), pp. 336368; C. Ocker,
Augustine, Episcopal Interests, and the Papacy in Late Roman Africa, Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 42/2 (1991), pp. 179201, and literature cited therein.
89 See M. Lamberigts, Cooperation of Church and State in the Condemnation of Pelagianism, in eds. T.L. Hettema, A. van der Kooij, Religious Polemics in Context (Assen, 2004),
pp. 363375.
90 See M. Lamberigts, Augustine and Julian of Aeclanum on Zosimus, Augustiniana 42
(1992), pp. 311330, and idem, Iulianus IV (Iulianus von Aeclanum), RAC 19 [149/150] (1999),
pp. 483505, with lit..
91 Ep. 35 (CPG 5668); ACO 1/5, p. 65, 1833 (in Latin). Constitutio Sirmondiana 6; CTh
16.2.27, pp. 911912; trans. Pharr, p. 479.
92 W. Bark, The Doctrinal Interests of Marius Mercator, Church History 12/3 (1943), pp.
210216.
93 Bark, The Doctrinal Interests, p. 215.
118
chapter five
After the Council of Ephesus I, Pelagianism ceased to be a problem in

the East. However trouble with Pelagians continued to brew in the West.
In Italy, according to the chronicle of Prosper,94 Leo was instrumental in
Sixtus opposition to Julian in 439, and in preventing Julian from regaining
his former see of Eclanum: this does not survive in the epistolary narrative. However, Leos first two letters as bishop were devoted to addressing
the problem of Pelagian clergy who were returning to northern Italy from
exile in the early 440s.95 Also around 440, a Pelagian tract was published
in Rome by the circle of Julian Eclanum under the title of Praedestinatus.96
A modified form of Pelagianism whose tenets differed in crucial respects
from the teachings of Pelagius on free will and original sin, now known as
semi-Pelagianism, was introduced to Gaul by John Cassian and taken up
by the monks of Marseilles.97 These monks were grappling with Augustines
somewhat extreme views on predestination and the role of free will in
human salvation. Faustus of Riez preface to De gratia, written after the
Council of Arles (c. 470), is not a standard dedication letter to its recipient
Leontius, but a brief outline of the purpose in writing the De gratia, namely,
to refute Pelagius exaggerated teaching on the efficacy of human works.98
After the condemnation of the doctrine of predestination at the Council of
Arles, further corrections were made at the Council of Lyon (c. 470/471). In
spite of episcopal efforts to stamp it out, Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism
lived on in Gaul, Britain and Ireland: its final condemnation is recorded at
the second Council of Orange in 529.
Priscillianism in Spain
In the 440s, the heretical movement of Priscillianism enjoyed a resurgence
in the mountainous Spanish province of Galicia. The sect had gone underground after its founder, Bishop Priscillian of Avila, was executed along with
94
Epitoma chronicon 1336; ed. Mommsen, MGH AA 9, p. 477.

Leo Mag., Ep. 1, Ep. 2, dated 440442. See B. Neil, A Crisis of Orthodoxy: Leo Is Fight
against the Deadly Disease of Heresy, in eds. Sim, Allen, Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts,
pp. 144158.
96 Although it contained a nominal condemnation of Pelagius, it was actually a Pelagian
or semi-Pelagian defence of free will and a condemnation of Augustines teachings on grace
and predestination, which it presented in a much distorted version.
97 See Cassian, De incarnatione Christi; ed. M. Petschenig, Iohannis Cassiani opera, CSEL 17
(Vienna, 2004), vol. 1.
98 Faustus, Ep. 1, PL 58, 835C837B; cf. Krusch, MGH AA 8, p. LVI.
95
119
several of his followers for sorcery c. 386ce.99 Priscillians followers continued to flourish especially in Galicia in the 390s until the condemnation of
their practices at the Synod of Toledo in 400.100 Orosius, bishop of Braga, consulted Augustine on their status in his warning letter, the Commonitorium.
When the Council of Toledo decided to readmit bishops who had renounced
Priscillianism, Innocent I was called upon to uphold the decision.101 In the
440s they appear again in their former stronghold of Galicia, having been
allowed to flourish free from imperial persecution due to the Suevi and
Vandal domination of the region. The bishop of Astorga sought the aid of
the bishop of Rome on what to do in these circumstances, sending him a
personal letter together with a tract detailing sixteen points in which the
Priscillianists deviated in their teaching.102 Pope Leos reply shows how the
genealogy of heresy could be applied to disarm a new enemy by framing him
as an older, familiar one. This was a common strategy in episcopal dealing
with heretics of all kinds.103
Donatism in North Africa
The Donatist schism, which began in 303, was still very much alive in North
Africa after its condemnation at the Council of Carthage in 411.104Augustine
of Hippo was at the forefront of the catholic opposition, and conducted
99 For older bibliography on Priscillian and Priscillianism, see B. Vollmann, Studien zum
Priszillianismus. Die Forschung, die Quellen, der fnfzehnte Brief Papst Leos des Grossen, Kirchengeschichtliche Quellen und Studien 7 (St. Ottilien, 1965). More recently: H. Chadwick,
Priscillian of Avila: the Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford, 1976); M. Conti,
ed., trans., Priscillian of Avila. The Complete Works, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 2010).
100 Chadwick, Priscillian, p. 157.
101 Innocent I, Ep. 3; PL 20, 485493.
102 Ep. 15.2: In quo Arrianorum quoque suffragantur errori dicentium quod Pater Filio
prior sit ; eds., trans. Schipper, van Oort, Sermons and Letters, p. 56: In this they (sc. the
Priscillianists) favour the error of the Arians, who say that the Father is prior to the Son . In
the same letter Leo likens their beliefs to the heresies of Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Photinus,
Cerdo and Marcion.
103 The followers of Dioscorus and Eutyches were also accused of holding to the mad
notion of the Manichees, in Leo Is letter to Julian of Cos, Ep. 109, of 25 November 452.
104 The classic study remains that of W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church. A Movement of
Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952; repr. 1971), esp. pp. 275336, which was supported by archaeological evidence gathered during the authors service during World War II.
H. Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society: from Galilee to Gregory the Great, Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford, 2001), pp. 382393, gives a basic summary of the
sources. See the forthcoming volume; ed. M.A. Gaumer, A. Dupont, M. Lamberigts, The
Uniquely African Controversy: Studies on Donatist Christianity, LAHR (Leuven, forthcoming).
120
chapter five
a lively correspondence with various protagonists, including the Donatist

bishop Gaudentius.105
In various letters Augustine refers to the cruelty and violence of the
Donatists and Circumcellions,106 accusing them too of pillaging.107 He alleges
that the robberies they have committed in the region of Hippo make the
actions of the barbarians perhaps seem less severe.108 In Letter 185, which
Augustine regarded as a book and entitled The Correction of the Donatists,
he deals with the attempted murder of Maximian, the catholic bishop of
Bagai in southern Numidia, in c. 403, who was attacked at the altar by the
Donatists. The bishop was beaten with clubs and other weapons, and with
pieces of wood torn from the altar, before being stabbed in the groin with
a dagger. After being dragged around he was abandoned by his assailants,
but when the catholics rallied to carry him off while singing Psalms, the
Donatists became enraged with fiercer anger and snatched him from the
hand of those who were carrying him, badly mistreating and putting to
flight the catholics, whom they surpassed by their great numbers and easily
terrified by their savagery.109 Next the Donatists took Maximian up to a
tower and pushed him off, but he managed to survive and was nursed back
to health by his supporters.110 Conflict between Donatists and catholics was
long-standing and violent in the area of Bagai, where in the mid-340s a
massacre had been perpetrated by the Circumcellions.111
The catholic position was supported by imperial force under the exarch
Marcellinus, who presided over the conference of Carthage in 412 and subsequently prosecuted the Donatists under imperial anti-heresy laws, seizing
105 Augustine wrote two tracts entitled Contra Gaudentium. These were perhaps selfconsciously modelled on republican Roman law-court speeches, such as Ciceros Contra
Lucium Catilinam, Contra Rullum and In Verrem. The continuity of themes in Augustines
anti-Pelagian letters and tracts, and his writings on Donatism has recently been revealed by
A. Dupont, Augustines Recourse to 1 Jn 1,8 Revisited. The Polemical Roots of an Anti-Pelagian
Stronghold, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 46 (2011), pp. 7190.
106 On the violent persecution of rigorist Donatists and their militant arm, the Circumcellions, see now B.D. Shaw, Sacred Violence. African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of
Augustine (Cambridge, 2011), esp. pp. 828839. Cf. M. Gaddis, There Is No Crime for Those Who
Have Christ. Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire, Transformation of the Classical
Heritage 39 (Berkeley, 2005), pp. 103130 on religious violence in Donatist North Africa.
107 See e.g. Epp. 108.14, 111.1, 139.2, 185.27, 11*.26.
108 Ep. 111.1; NBA 21/2, p. 1094. Trans. R. Teske, Letters 100155 (Epistulae), WSA 2 (Hyde Park,
NY, 2003), p. 88.
109 Ep. 185.27; NBA 23, pp. 48, 50. Trans. Teske, Letters 156210 (Epistulae), WSA 3 (Hyde Park,
NY, 2004), p. 195.
110 On the entire episode see Shaw, Sacred Violence, pp. 442443, pp. 527529.
111 See further Shaw, Sacred Violence, pp. 165167.
121
their estates.112 North Africans in the provinces of Numidia and Mauritania

especially continued to defect to the schism, which had its own churches
and clergy. M. Tilley points out that Augustines letters show more clearly
than his tractates that Donatists had their own evolving theology, especially
in the areas of ecclesiology and sacraments, with schisms occurring within
Donatism, such as the Maximianists and Rogatists.113 We also now have three
reliably Donatist letters, which survived by being buried among the Spuria
of Sulpicius Severus.114
The Donatist problem was not confined to North Africa. After the Vandal invasions of the 430s and their settlement in the northern province
of Proconsular Africa, persecutions of all non-homoean Christians drove
Donatists, Manicheans and catholics alike into exile.115 Possidius relates that
Augustine saw all but three catholic churches destroyed by Vandal soldiers: only those of Hippo, Carthage and Cirta survived, and even the city
of Hippo was destroyed and abandoned after Augustines death in 430.116
Donatist refugees from the province of Mauretania settled in southern Gaul,
to the consternation of catholic bishops there, as we learn from the correspondence of Pope Leo I.117 After the Byzantine reconquest of North Africa,
and Justinians issue of an edict proscribing Donatists, Arians and Jews in
535,118 there seems to have been a lull in the persecution of Donatists for
about 55 years. The last definite mention of Donatists in any episcopal letter
is found in the Registrum of Gregory the Great (590604), who was concerned by the continuing vigour of Donatism in Africa, especially in southern Numidia.119
112
See Augustine, Ep. 185.9.3637; NBA 26, pp. 56, 58.

M. Tilley, Redefining Donatism: Moving Forward, Augustinian Studies 42 (2011), pp. 21
32, esp. pp. 2728. Tilley calls for further attention to be focussed on the letters of Augustine
for a better understanding of Donatism (ibid., p. 26).
114 (CPL 479 iv.v.vi); ed. C. Lepelley, Trois documents mconnus sur lhistoire sociale
et religieuse de l Afrique romaine tardive, retrouvs parmi les Spuria de Sulpice Svre,
Antiquits africaines 25 (1989), pp. 235262.
115 While the Nicene sources dismissed the Vandal leader Geiseric as an Arian, he was in
fact a homoean, that is, an opponent of the homousian doctrine that had been proclaimed
orthodox at the Council of Nicaea (325ce). See Heather, Christianity and the Vandals,
pp. 137138.
116 Augustine, Ep. 220.7; NBA 23, pp. 626, 628; Possidius, Vita Augustini, 28.10; ed. Bastiaensen, pp. 127241 at p. 208; Frend, Donatist Church, pp. 301302.
117 Leo Mag., Ep. 168.18; PL 54, 1209; Frend, Donatist Church, p. 305.
118 Justinian, Novella 37.5 and 37.8, issued on 1 August 535; eds. R. Schoell et al., Corpus iuris
civilis, vol. 3, Novellae, 13th ed. (Berlin, 1963), p. 245.
119 Greg. Mag., Reg. 1.72, 2.33, 2.46, 3.32; ed. Norberg, CCSL 140, pp. 8081, 119, 138 and 178.
113
122
chapter five
Review of Sixth-Century Christological Disputes
By contrast with the previous century, sixth-century episcopal correspondence relating to crisis and religious conflict is sparse at best. Even the contents of the papal scrinium are patchy, there being little or nothing from
Popes John I (523526), Felix IV (526530), Boniface II (530532), John II
(532535) and John III (561574). In the East, with regard to epistolary corpora we rely for the most part on the collection of letters of Severus of
Antiochwhich, however, reflects the bias of its compiler in favour of
canonical and disciplinary mattersand on a dossier of letters apparently
put together soon after 580 and discussed in our case-study below, which
reveals the serious internal conflicts in the anti-Chalcedonian party from
the 550s to the last decades of the century. As we pointed out in Chapter 4 on
natural disasters, it is a matter of regret that we have no surviving correspondence from the Antiochene Patriarch Ephrem to illuminate sixth-century
religious conflict. There are also no letters surviving from the influential and
prolific Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria (580607), who was active during four imperial reigns. Nevertheless, religious conflict in this period was
rife and is well documented from other sources, mainly historical works,
although these too become increasingly sketchy as the sixth century progresses. Here we rely principally on Marcellinus Comes, John Malalas, the
church historians Zachariah, Evagrius, and John of Ephesus, Syriac chronicles and the later chroniclers, Theophanes (eighth to ninth centuries) and
Michael the Syrian (twelfth century), who preserve some excellent earlier
sources.
Religious conflict in the sixth century continued to focus on the reception
or rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, played out in starker and more
polarized form than previously. The eirenic emperor Anastasius I (491518)
abided by Zenos Henotikon, with confusing results. The church historian
Evagrius reports that each bishop was allowed to maintain the christological
status quo in his see. The situation became even more absurd, he relates,
because the prelates of the East were not even in communion with each
other, nor indeed were those directing the sees of Europe with Libya, and
much less so with outsiders.120 Amid such disunity in the East, it was not
surprising that the Acacian schism continued.
The reign of Anastasius, who was sympathetic to opponents of the Council of 451, was to witness the crystallization of the anti-Chalcedonian posi120 Evagrius, HE 3.30; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, p. 126, 2730; trans. Whitby, Ecclesiastical
History, p. 167.
123
tion and a powerful articulation of its theology. Instrumental in this were

Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbog, who arrived in Constantinople around 500,
but had left before the monk Severus, later patriarch of Antioch, arrived
there in 508. The partnership of these two men, who would not be satisfied
with anything less than an outright condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, has been described as a turning-point in the history of incarnational
theology because they galvanized the politics and theological vocabulary
of the anti-Chalcedonian movement.121 Paradoxically at the same time the
ecclesiastical policies of Emperor Anastasius were waning as the Henotikon
was proved an ineffective instrument of union: the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem were held by staunch Chalcedonians.
This did not deter Philoxenus, however, from engineering the removal of
Flavian, patriarch of Antioch, and the substitution of Severus in 512 with the
agreement of the emperor.
The concerted attempt of Philoxenus and Severus to overturn Chalcedon
led the adherents of the Council of 451 to seek some rapprochement by
reconciling the formulae in two natures and from two natures and to
demonstrate that Cyril of Alexandria, the touchstone of orthodoxy for the
anti-Chalcedonians, was in accord with Chalcedon. This movement, called
neo-Chalcedonianism, gathered momentum and could have provided common ground in the conflict about the contentious council.122 On the other
hand, outright support for Chalcedon was growing in Illyria, as we learn
from a letter of the bishops there to Pope Symmachus (512),123 and from the
demands of the Gothic general, Vitalian, who was quartered in Thrace with
troops faithful to the papal cause. Following Vitalians revolt and his defeat
of Anastasius troops on the Black Sea in 514, a number of anti-Nestorian
monks from Scythia arrived in Constantinople, championing the phrase
one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh in the liturgical hymn known as the
Trisagion. This catch-cry was to characterize orthodoxy in the capital and it
was subsequently embraced by Emperor Justinian.124
121 See C. Moeller, Le Chalcdonisme et le no-Chalcdonisme en Orient de 451 la fin du

VIe sicle, in eds. Grillmeier, Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, pp. 637720 at 670. On
Philoxenus see A. de Halleux, Philoxne de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses crits, sa thologie (Louvain,
1963). On Severus see Case-study 5 in Chapter 3.
122 Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 2223; cf. Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch, pp. 1011.
123 Ep. 12; ed. Thiel, pp. 709717.
124 For details see J.A. McGuckin, The Theopaschite Confession (Text and Historical
Context): A Study in the Cyrilline Re-interpretation of Chalcedon, Journal of Ecclesiastical
History 35 (1984), pp. 239255; Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 317343.
124
chapter five
Although in 518 the largely pro-Chalcedonian party in Constantinople

welcomed Anastasius successor, Justin I, as orthodox, it has recently been
suggested that the new emperor had political reasons for accepting Chalcedon, rescinding the Henotikon, and implementing the libellus of Pope
Hormisdas (514523),125 which had already been sent to Emperor Anastasius in 515. We are quite well informed by Hormisdas letters about the
missions of his legates to Constantinople from 515 to 517.126 The libellus, a
letter-tractate also called the Formula of Hormisdas, insisted on observance
of the formula of Chalcedon, that those regarded by the see of Rome as
heretics (Nestorius, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus and Acacius)
be struck from the diptychs in the East as well, and that cases against bishops be tried in the papal court.127 It also demanded the submission of the
secular ruler to the Roman pontiff. Justin and his nephew and successor,
Justinian I (527565), implemented the document as another instrument
of union everywhere except Egypt, but while it healed the breach between
Rome and Constantinople, it produced lasting divisions in the East between
adherents and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. There followed largescale banishments of anti-Chalcedonian bishops who refused to subscribe
to the document, including that of Severus of Antioch. Many of the exiles,
who were subsequently joined by monks and nuns, fled to Egypt. A considerable number of Severus letters report on this crisis in the life of the
anti-Chalcedonian church,128 one of the most serious aspects of which was
the resulting lack of clergy. Letter 1.7 to Castor, bishop of Perga, reports a petition by sub-deacons alleging that readers and cantors were trying to seize
their place by violence.129 Severus warned the bishop of Tripolis that it was
the duty of bishops like you to restrain any incidents of mob violence and
to maintain all good order in the cities.130
125
See Menze, Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, pp. 1830.

Epp. 4, 6, 8, 13, 27, 37; ed. Thiel, pp. 745746, 747748, 755758, 766768, 796800, 812
813. On these and other papal embassies at the time see A. Gillett, Envoys and Political
Communication in the Late Antique West, 411533 (Cambridge, 2003), pp. 1126.
127 Ep. 8; ed. Thiel, pp. 755758. See the analysis in P. Charanis, Church and State in the Later
Roman Empire. The Religious Policy of Anastasius I (491518), 11,
2nd ed. (Thessalonica, 1974), pp. 9091. On the reception and influence of the document see
Menze, Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, esp. pp. 1718, and pp. 3234 with lit.
128 See also Case-study 5 on his exile in Chapter 3 above.
129 Severus, Ep. 1.7; ed., trans. Brooks, Select Letters, vol. 1, pp. 4345 (text), vol. 2, pp. 3941
(trans.).
130 Ep. 1.9; ed., trans. Brooks, Select Letters, vol. 1, pp. 4851 (text), vol. 2, pp. 4446 (trans.)
(513518ce).
126
125
Internal conflicts also beset the anti-Chalcedonians. The correspondence

between Bishop Julian of Halicarnassus and Severus, begun before their
exile in Egypt, informs us about the extent to which Julians doctrine
alarmed and irritated Severus, although the fundamental point of contention between the two men was a terminological one.131 Despite Severus
misrepresentations of Julians doctrine of the aphtharsia or incorruptibility
of Christ and of the union of human and divine in Christ so complete that the
difference between the two faded into the background, it seems that the former bishop of Halicarnassus did not intend to abolish the reality of the body
of Christ, but rather to portray Christ as a new Adam, with special prerogatives. This new Adam was not subjected to the limitations of humankind, but
voluntarily underwent passions such as suffering and death. Since Julians
followers were subsequently not so careful in their formulations, Severus
alarm at the rise and popularity of so-called aphthartodocetism was proven
to be well founded. Julianism acquired a firm footing in Egypt, especially in
monastic circles, and spread widely, notably to Armenia, causing a serious
schism among anti-Chalcedonians. It also spread to Chalcedonian circles,
where its most significant adherent may have been Emperor Justinian, who
reportedly turned to the doctrine towards the end of his life.132 The correspondence between Severus and the exaggerated monophysite, Sergius,
which, although couched in letter-form, is really more like a collection of
doctrinal treatises,133 provides further evidence of the range of christological
opinions among the anti-Chalcedonian party.
A further attempt to strike the right christological balance was made after
536 by the Alexandrian deacon, Themistius, an anti-Chalcedonian opposed
to the doctrine of the Julianists, who tried to do justice to the humanity
of Christ by positing in him ignorance of certain events. His followers as
a consequence were dubbed the Agnoetai (those who do not know).134
Originally confined to Alexandria and Constantinople, Themistius doctrine
spread and was attacked by anti-Chalcedonians in treatises and other works.
It is mentioned in several episcopal letters, including four in the dossier that
131 On the controversy surrounding Julian see R. Draguet, Julien dHalicarnasse et sa controverse avec Svre d Antioche sur l incorruptibilit du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924); Grillmeier,
CCT 2, part 2, pp. 79111. For the correspondence between Julian and Severus see Hespel,
Svre d Antioche. La polmique antijulianiste 1.
132 For an assessment of the sources on this point see Meier, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians,
pp. 289291.
133 Ed., trans. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon. The Correspondence of Severus and
Sergius.
134 On the Agnoetai see Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 1102.
126
chapter five
forms the basis of our case-study below, and a letter of Gregory or Rome (for
there is good reason to believe that Agnoetic doctrine, with its emphasis
on Christs humanity, appealed to some Chalcedonians as well).135 Like the
conflict engendered by Julianist doctrine, the Agnoetic debate was fierce
and long-lived.
The long reign of Justinian was characterised by continual efforts for
ecclesiastical unity, partly for political reasons, partly through his interest
in theological debate. These efforts were punctuated by persecution of dissidents and forced conversions:136 in Antioch Severus successor, Paul the Jew
(519521), persecuted anti-Chalcedonians, as did Patriarch Ephrem of Antioch (527545), while Bishop John of Ephesus had the mission of converting
pagans to Christianity. A further obstacle to the emperors designs for peace
was presented by the increasing fragmentation of the anti-Chalcedonians.
In 532 Justinian convened a meeting between six Chalcedonian and six antiChalcedonian bishops, to which Severus, as a pivotal figure in any attempt
at ecclesiastical unity, was also invited. Severus declined, as attested in a
long letter of apology he wrote to Justinian.137 The inconclusive meeting is
partly documented in detail, the position of the Chalcedonian side being
presented in a letter from Bishop Innocentius of Maroneia,138 and that of the
anti-Chalcedonians by reports from various sources.
Two other major developments during the reign of Justinian are not
attested in episcopal letters. One is the creation of anti-Chalcedonian hierarchy begun by John of Tella in Osrhone (east Syria) in the early 530s and
continued by Jacob Baradaeus until the latters death in 578.139 This development led eventually to the separation of the anti-Chalcedonian churches.
In 542/3 the first anti-Chalcedonian bishops were ordained by Patriarch
Theodosius: Jacob of Edessa was ordained for Edessa and Theodore of Ara-
135
DM 13, 14, 44 and 45; Greg. Mag., Reg. 10.21.

There is a huge bibliography on Justinian, his ecclesiastical policies and his theological
writings. On the latter see most recently C. dellOsso, Cristo e Logos. Il Chalcedonismo del VI
secolo in Oriente, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 118 (Rome, 2010), pp. 257290 with lit.
For recent assessments of the reign of Justinian see Meier, Das andere Zeitalter; Maas, ed.,
Age of Justinian; Menze, Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church; M. Meier, ed., Justinian: Neue
Wege der Forschung (Darmstadt, 2011), all with lit..
137 Ps. Zach., HE 9.16; ed. Brooks, CSCO 84, pp. 124.15131.19; trans. in ed. Greatrex, pp. 354
361; cf. Allen, Hayward, Severus of Antioch, pp. 153158.
138 See S.P. Brock, The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532),
Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 (1981), pp. 87121; further commentary in Grillmeier, CCT 2,
part 2, pp. 232248. The letter of Innocentius (CPG 6846), preserved only in Latin translation,
is found in ACO 4/2, pp. 169184.
139 See Menze, Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, esp. pp. 145193.
136
127
bia for Bostra. Through the missionary efforts of Jacob in particular the
anti-Chalcedonian (Jacobite) church was consolidated from Asia Minor to
Nubia.140 The second is the controversy aroused by anti-Origenist monks in
Palestine. Following ideas attributed to the third-century speculative theologian Origen, some monks believed that in the apokatastasis or restoration
of all things at the end of time, all would be equal to Christ; others, however, who believed in the pre-existence of the soul, maintained that the preexistent human soul of Christ was the first-born of all creation. Yet another
group strongly opposed these so-called Origenists. While conflict regarding
the supposed ideas of Origen was not new, Justinian assessed that the situation called for a tract, Edictum contra Origenem, anathematizing Origen
and Origenists. This was ratified by a synod in 544 and condemned further at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553.141 Conversely, the activities of
Patriarch Theodosius (d. 566), the successor of Severus as leader of the antiChalcedonians, and his opposition to the tritheist doctrine (see below) are
well documented in letters in the DM, as we shall see in the case-study which
follows.142
Among the topics raised at the conversations of 532 was the reception of
Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia and of some works of Bishops Theodoret
of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa, perceived as anti-Cyrillian by the Council of
451. The contested works of these three authors came to be known as the
Three Chapters. Since anti-Chalcedonians objected to these persons and
their writings on the grounds that they did not reflect the vaunted orthodoxy
of Chalcedon, but were rather Nestorian, Justinian tried to achieve compromise about the Three Chapters. However, in 543 or the following year the
emperor promulgated an edict condemning them, giving rise to the Three
Chapters Controversy, yet another source of conflict between adherents
and opponents of the council of 451.143 Justinians condemnation of these
140 See A. Van Roey, Les dbuts de l glise jacobite, in eds. A. Grillmeier, H. Bacht, Das
Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Wrzburg, 1951) vol. 2, pp. 339360.
141 For an overview of controversies concerning Origen see R. Williams, Origenes/Origenismus, TRE 25 (Berlin, New York, 1995), pp. 397420; for the sixth century see the pioneering
work of F. Diekamp, Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fnfte
allgemeine Concil (Mnster, 1899); D. Hombergen, The Second Origenist Controversy: A New
Perspective on Cyril of Scythopolis Monastic Biographies as Historical Sources for Sixth-Century
Origenism, Studia Anselmiana 132 (Rome, 2001). See also Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 385
410.
142 See Case-study 2 below.
143 See the essays in eds. Chazelle, Cubitt, Crisis of the Oikoumene, with lit.; cf. Grillmeier,
CCT 2, part 2, pp. 411462.
128
chapter five
three pieces was strenuously opposed in the West because it was seen as a
betrayal of an ecumenical council, as papal letters, particularly those of the
hapless Vigilius (537555),144 testify, but the pope was forced to capitulate
in person in 548 while being detained in Constantinople. The unease felt
about the condemnation of dead theologians is expressed in a letter of
Bishop Pontianus of Africa to the emperor Justinian, composed in 545 to
546: Pontianus objects that if Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas were still
living, and, when corrected, would not condemn their own error, they would
most justly be condemned. But as things are, to whom will our verdict of
condemnation be read? There is nothing in them that could now be set
right.145 Echoes of the Three Chapters controversy continued to reverberate
well into the seventh century.
Council of Constantinople II (553)
The Fifth Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 553, followed on
from the attempt to combat neo-Nestorianism that was manifested in the
Three Chapters controversy.146 It also sought to ratify Justinians edict of 543
condemning Origenism (which had been rife in monastic communities,
especially in Palestine), Evagrius of Pontus and Didymus of Alexandria.147 Its
canons 1214, incorporating a condemnation of the Three Chapters, were
calculated to strengthen the christology of Chalcedon by emphasizing its
anti-Nestorian and anti-dualist aspects, but for this very reason the council
was seen by some as undoing the work of the Council of 451. Although Pope
Vigilius did not confirm the authority of the Council of 553, his successors
regarded it as an ecumenical council, and it was accepted by the Chalcedonian churches in the East.148
144 On Vigilius see C. Sotinel, Authorit pontificale et pouvoir imperial sous le rgne
de Justinien: le pape Vigile, Mlanges de l cole franaise de Rome 104 (1992), pp. 463493;
eadem, s.v. Vigilio, EDP 1, pp. 512528. See also Case-study 3 on Vigilius in Chapter 3 above.
On Vigilius letters see in particular Scandala (CPL 1694) in ACO 4/1, pp. 245247; Aetius or
Constitutum II (CPL 1696) in ACO 4/2, pp. 138168. Cf. Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 441442.
145 CPL 864; PL 67, 995998; trans. in Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, vol. 1,
pp. 111112, here p. 111.
146 Text in ACO 4/1. For an English translation (with introduction, notes) of the proceedings
of this council see Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople. See too Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2,
pp. 439462.
147 See further Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 2, pp. 402410.
148 See further Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, vol. 1, pp. 99103.
129
Through a number of episcopal letters contained in the DM we are reasonably well informed about the conflict that arose as a result of the spread
of tritheist doctrine from the 550s onwards. The doctrine was refuted in a
magisterial Theological Discourse composed by Patriarch Theodosius probably soon after 560,149 which is referred or alluded to repeatedly in episcopal
letters. This conflict and its impact on the politics of episcopal ordination
will be examined in greater detail in our case-study below. Suffice it to
say that, like the conflict engendered by Julianism and Agnoetic doctrine,
the tritheist dispute led to wrangling and fragmentation among the antiChalcedonians.
Justinians successor, Justin II (565578), was initially conciliatory towards the anti-Chalcedonians in his desire to effect ecclesiastical harmony,
despite violent outbursts among monastic communities in Syria offering
them many concessions, to the extent that high-profile anti-Chalcedonian
bishops were beguiled into communion with Chalcedonians. In c. 568 the
emperor issued a draft edict, redrafted about three years later, which was
moderate and accommodating. When the anti-Chalcedonian party rejected
it, persecution began.150
In the so-called Alexandrine schism of 575, the lead-up to which is discussed in some detail in our second case-study below, episcopal letters
played an important part. Indeed, we are reliant on them in the first instance
for the events which led to the 40-year schism between the sees of Antioch
and Alexandria and involved much of the anti-Chalcedonian party in the
East as well.
Conclusion
The case-studies below illuminate various strategies that bishops used to
contain or inflame religious controversies. It is especially true in the sphere
of religious conflict that bishops created as many crises as they resolved.
The compilation of dossiers of letters and other pertinent documents was a
major means of circulating ones side of a theological argument. Often the
compiler took pains to preserve his anonymity, as in the case of the DM.
149 On the calculation of the date see A. Van Roey, La controverse trithite jusqu lexcommunication de Conon et d Eugne (557569), Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985),
pp. 141165; Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, p. 130.
150 On all these developments see Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian, pp. 22
25, 212214.
130
chapter five
Other means were applying false genealogies of heresy, writing circular letters to groups of bishops in other provinces calling for supportoften in the
guise of encyclicals or festal letterspetitioning members of the imperial
family or calling for local or ecumenical councils to resolve controversies.
The blustering pomposity of correspondence between bishops engaged in
religious disputation and the use of legalistic language both disguise the
fact that there was very little civil power attached to either party. Physical
punishments were rarely as drastic as the eternal damnation threatened by
excommunication or exclusion of ones name from the diptychs. That is not
to ignore the fact that Manichees, Donatists, Priscillianists and adherents
of other sects could legally be tortured and occasionally put to death. Social
exclusion could indeed be tantamount to a death sentence, if it meant being
permanently cut off from ones social networks and the means of survival.
That is why letters of bishops in exile are so illuminating, because for once
we see them writing from a position of relative powerlessness. The use of
similes from war and political exile when applied to bishops in self-imposed
estrangement from their sees might seem to us misplaced, and treatment of
enemies in the faith like enemies of the state may appear, at the least, a little
de trop. However, this response would miss the real (or perceived) dangers
in ecclesiastical disunity during a time of great pressures, both in terms of
military security and in the scarcity of resources that war and natural disasters generated. In the next chapter we examine epistolary responses to
the social abuses that were an inevitable part of fifth- and sixth-century life,
both within the church and without.
Case-Studies of Religious Conflict Management
Case-Study 1. After Chalcedon: The Codex Encyclius
The controversy and unrest after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 have been
outlined above in this chapter. Particularly troubled were Jerusalem, where
Patriarch Juvenal had difficulty in retaining his see after his return from
the council,151 and Alexandria, where resentment concerning the deposition
of Patriarch Dioscorus at Chalcedon festered among parts of the Christian
community, to the extent that the anti-Chalcedonian Timothy was smuggled into Alexandria and consecrated patriarch, while the Chalcedonian
151 See L. Perrone, La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche (Brescia, 1980),

pp. 89103.
131
patriarch Proterius was murdered on 28 March 457.152 In an attempt to put

an end to controversy and violence, the emperor Leo decided in 457/8 to
circulate to metropolitans, bishops, and select high-profile figures in the
monastic movement a questionnaire asking for their reactions to the decisions of the council and the consecration of Timothy Aelurus.153 There is
some uncertainty among modern scholars whether the emperor did or did
not intend to manipulate the outcome.154 Bishops were to reply individually,
or else metropolitans were to convene synods of their suffragans and communicate their decisions by letters which were to be gathered in the imperial
chancellery in Constantinople. This process resulted in the preservation in
Latin, albeit in an incomplete form, of some 30 episcopal letters and other
documents dealing with bishops responses to the most serious religious
crisis in the period with which we are concerned, namely the reception or
rejection of the Council of Chalcedon.
The CEn survives in two manuscripts deriving from one exemplar dating from the Carolingian age: Parisinus Latinus 12098 and Vindobonensis
397.155 A third copy has been lost. The collection in which the CEn has
been transmitted (Collectio Sangermanensis after the library of St Germain
des Prs in Paris) includes also the Breviarium of the Carthaginian deacon
Liberatus relating to the Three Chapters dispute, and a selection of letters
and other documents which do not hang together well qua content either
internally or with the remainder of the Collectio.156 In the incipit of Paris.
152 Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 154155, 160162; P. Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451491). De l histoire la go-ecclsiologie, Bibliothque des coles
franaises d Athnes et de Rome 327 (Rome, 2006), p. 151 and n. 266 on historical and biblical
overtones of this murder.
153 The main sources are Zachariah Rhetor, HE, Liberatus, Breviarium, Evagrius Scholasticus, HE, and Michael the Syrian, Chronicle. According to Zachariah Rhetor, HE 4.5, the idea of
consulting by letter came from Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, whose see had done
well out of the Council of Chalcedon and did not want another council to be summoned to
solve the problems that arose after 451. For accounts of the process of collecting the replies
to the questionnaire (the CEn), see T. Schnitzler, Im Kampfe um Chalcedon. Geschichte und
Inhalt des Codex Encyclius von 458, Analecta Gregoriana 16 (Rome, 1938); Frend, Rise of the
Monophysite Movement, pp. 160163; Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, pp. 195235. These studies concentrate on the political or theological dimensions of the CEn, rather than on the rationale of
collecting and deploying episcopal letters in situations of crisis, with which we are principally
concerned here.
154 See, e.g., Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, pp. 202204, who argues against manipulation; contra
position in Whitby, Ecclesiastical History, p. 89 n. 112.
155 The latter suspected by its editor, E. Schwartz, ACO 2/5 (Berlin, Leipzig, 1936), pp. 398
(editors prefatio, pp. XIIXVI), praef. V, to be of slightly later date.
156 See Schwartz, ACO 2/5, praef., p. XX.
132
chapter five
Lat. 12098 we read the somewhat ambitious statement: This manuscript,

namely of letters of the entire world, was translated from Greek into Latin
by the extremely erudite man, Epiphanius, at the behest of the senator Cassiodorus.157 In fact, the number of letters replying to Leos questionnaire is
moot, and it is clear that what survives to us is incomplete. According to
the estimate of Patriarch Ephrem of Antioch (526544), 470 bishops and
monks were involved,158 whereas some decades later Patriarch Eulogius of
Alexandria (580608) gives a number of 1600.159 At the end of the CEn itself
we read that the collection auspiciously (feliciter) encompasses 500 letters of bishops of the whole world, the compiler/translator having rounded
up the number.160 In its present form the CEn contains only 38 letters (34
letters of reply with another four prefaced to them to contextualize the collection), to which are prefaced ten other documents pertaining to the questionnaire. Two letters of Emperor Marcian and one of Empress Pulcheria
stating the position of Chalcedon open the Collectio Sangermanensis.161 A list
of intended addressees contains 65 names of bishops and monastics, plus
the rubric ceteris episcopis metropolitanis.162 The order of the list is hierarchical, beginning with the incumbent of the see of Rome, whereas the order
of the letters themselves is different; in addition, some names mentioned
in the list are not found in the letters, and vice versa. Of the 29 missing letters, the absence of two is explained by the fact that the bishops in question
signed not individually but with their metropolitans.163 We know from the
sources that the missing bishops Stephen of Mabbug164 and Amphilochius
157 Taken from Cassiodorus, Institutiones (CPL 906); PL 70, 1123CD. On the process of
translation into Latin and the question whether Epiphaniuss translation was the first see
Schnitzler, Im Kampfe um Chalcedon, pp. 6771.
158 As recorded by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople in the ninth century: Photius,
Bibliotheca, cod. 229 (254b); ed. R. Henry, Photius Bibliothque. Codices 223229 (Paris, 1965;
repr. 2003), vol. 4, p. 142.
159 Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 230; ed. R. Henry, Photius Bibliothque. Codices 230241 (Paris,
1967; repr. 2003), vol. 5, p. 55, 36 [G]loriosae vero exaggerationis causa, comments Schwartz,
ACO 2/5, praef. p. XIII, pointing out that Eulogius was calculating not the responses but the
number of episcopal sees in the empire.
160 ACO 2/5, p. 98, 34.
161 Epp. 12; ACO 2/5, pp. 37; Ep. 3; ed. ACO 2/5, pp. 78.
162 ACO 2/5, pp. 2224.
163 These were Julian of Tabia, who signed Ep. 45 with the metropolitan and bishops of
Galatia Prima, and Adelphius of Arabissus, who signed Ep. 37 with the metropolitan and
bishops of Armenia Secunda.
164 Preserved in Cassiodorus and Benedict of Aniane: see Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, p. 199
with n. 18.
133
of Side replied,165 as apparently did Symeon the Stylite,166 and we may be

reasonably confident that Juvenal of Jerusalem responded as well, although
his letter does not survive.167 The metropolitans of Prevalitana (Dacia), of
Moesia, and Dacia Ripensis were apparently not consulted: these provinces
were probably regarded as disorganized because of barbarian invasions.168
According to Evagrius,169 Letter 165 of Leo of Rome and a libellus composed
by Timothy Aelurus formed part of the CEn, but today they have not survived
in the collection.
The covering document (Ep. 10) to the list of addressees informs the
reader that with the letter of Emperor Leo announcing the questionnaire
another three letters were disseminated: (1) petitions from the Chalcedonian bishops of Egypt and the priests of Alexandria to Emperor Leo (Ep.
7); (2) petitions to Emperor Leo from Timothy Aelurus and his party (Ep.
9); and (3) a letter from Patriarch Anatolius to the Egyptian church (Ep.
8). The language used in these letters, which do not appear in CEn in the
order given here, together with that of Leos own encyclical letter sets the
tone for many of the bishops replies. Leo writes of the turmoil in Jerusalem
and Alexandria after Chalcedon and describes Emperor Marcian, the convener of the council, as sacratissimae memoriae. He refers to the cruel
and violent death of Proterius and to the consecration of Timothy Aelurus,
which appears to be against the canons. His solution is to seek by letter
a quick reassessment of the decisions of 451, rather than have recourse to
convening another council, which would be vexatious and require a not
inconsiderable amount of work.170 In Letter 7 the situation in Egypt is presented more forcefully from the Chalcedonian side: the bishops speak of
Emperor Marcian and Proterius as sanctae memoriae, profess their adherence to Nicaea and Chalcedon, express their indignation at the consecration
of Timothy, calling it an act of adultery, and describe the murder of Proterius in gruesome detail: although he had sought refuge in the baptistery
of the church just before Easter, he was forced out, killed, dragged around
165
Evagrius, HE 2.10; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, p. 61, 2731. See further below.
See Evagrius, HE 2.10; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, pp. 61, 3262, 3. See further below.
167 For the arguments see Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, pp. 200201.
168 As observed by A.-J. Festugire, vagre. Histoire Ecclsiastique, Byzantion 45 (1975),
pp. 187488 at pp. 266267 n. 80.
169 HE 2.10; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, p. 61, 1422. See further Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, p. 197
n. 10.
170 Ep. 5; ACO 2/5, pp. 9, 3511, 4. Greek text in Evagrius, HE 2.9; eds. Bidez, Parmentier,
pp. 59, 1861, 6.
166
134
chapter five
the city, dismembered, and set on firehis murderers, we are told, did not
even hold back from tasting his entrails like dogs.171 Timothy, the architect
of this atrocity, was firstly guilty of adultery then of homicide (adulter
homicida).172 He acted like a tyrant (tyrannico modo).173 This last phrase
is taken up by Anatolius in Letter 8,174 who after railing against the unlawful deeds of Timothy, rehearses the gruesome details of Proterius murder
in very similar terms to those of the Chalcedonian bishops and clergy in
Letter 7. The murderers, not only acting like dogs in tasting the entrails,
outstripped savage animals in their treatment of their bishop, the mediator between God and human beings.175 Letter 9, from Timothy and his party,
reaffirms faith in Nicaea and in Ephesus II, but declines to accept Chalcedon.
We come now to survey the surviving replies to Leos encyclical letter.
Letter 14 from the bishops of Europe to the emperor, escalates the rhetoric
found in the writings appended to Leos letter and disseminated with it. In
a pun the bishops describe Leos interventions on behalf of Chalcedon and
the situation in Alexandria as those of a lion that comes forth against enemies,176 and go on to give an account of Proterius murder that is similar to
that of Anatolius in Letter 8. They take this event a step further, however,
enrolling Proterius in the choir of holy martyrs and asking for his intercession before God.177 They condemn Timothy Aelurus as a wolf that, not
having spared the shepherd, is not sparing the sheep either.178 For his part,
Bishop Valentius of Philippopolis and his bishops praise Leo as a fierce lion
that attacks the enemies of God and of his imperial power, stating that they
uphold the Council of Chalcedon and denounce Timothy as a murderer and
a parricide.179 They refer to Emperor Marcian as the thrice-blessed leader of
divine memory.180
171
Ep. 7; ACO 2/5, p. 14, 623.

Ep. 7; ACO 2/5, p. 14, 2324.
173 The repetition of these ideas in several replies from the bishops shows that (pace
Schnitzler, Im Kampf um Chalcedon, p. 9) it was not only Emperor Leos letter that was known
to the recipients of the CEn.
174 ACO 2/5, p. 17, 2930.
175 ACO 2/5, p. 19, 2536.
176 leo quidem contra hostes existis; ed. Schwartz, p. 26, 24.
177 choro sanctorum martyrum; ed. Schwartz, p. 27, 2526.
178 ACO 2/5, p. 28, 3.
179 Ep. 16; ACO 2/5, pp. 2830. For an assessment of Timothys role and stature in the antiChalcedonian church see Blaudeau, Timothe Aelure et la direction ecclsiale.
180 divae memoriae ter beato principe Marciano; ed. Schwartz, p. 29, 39.
172
135
These are all recurring themes in the remainder of the replies, together
with an emphasis on the conciliar pedigree of Chalcedon, which originates
in Nicaea.181 The bishops of Hellespont, for example, declare that they know
Chalcedon followed Nicaea, implying that there is no need of another council,182 while the bishops of Cilicia remark that it would be disgraceful and
totally unworthy of the emperors right faith to announce that it was necessary to call a general synod.183 The nefarious character of Timothy Aelurus is
developed further, such that the bishops of Phoenicia Libanensis denounce
him as an adulterer, not a shepherd but a wolf, not a father but a parricide,
not a bridegroom but a violator of the bridal chamber.184
While generally the episcopal replies in the CEn exude a cloying subservience to Emperor Leo,185 there are some letters that do not completely
bear out the confident statement in the covering letter to the list of signatories, to the effect that all the replies condemned Timothy Aelurus and
approved Chalcedon.186 Bishop Alypius of Caesarea Cappadocia, for example, observes that he can say little because, not having been present at Chalcedon, he does not know what happened there, and only now has he barely
heard of events in Alexandria. Moreover, Alypius has not read the acta of
Chalcedon, nor was any extensive report brought back from the council by
his predecessor Thalassius, but only the definition of faith, which Alypius
finds does not depart from the true faith.187 He concludes that if what is
alleged about Timothy is true, he should be considered unworthy of the
episcopatehardly a resounding yes to his condemnation.188 Other bishops complain similarly that they have not been in possession of the facts:
the 21 bishops of Corinth apparently know of events regarding Timothy only
from what they have read (presumably in the letters attached to Leos questionnaire);189 those of Galatia Prima have only recently got wind of the events
in Alexandria.190 The seven bishops of Epirus Nova for their part hedge their
bets on the same events, for reports should not be accepted from one side,
181
See e.g. Epp. 19, 20 (Nicene creed is cited), 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 35.
Ep. 35; ACO 2/5, p. 68, 2831.
183 Ep. 29; ACO 2/5, p. 55, 2226.
184 Ep. 26; ACO 2/5, p. 45, pp. 1619.
185 Further developed by Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 1, pp. 204210, under the heading The
Bishops Happily Accept the Imperial Church.
186 Ep. 10; ACO 2/5, p. 22, 2630.
187 Ep. 38; ACO 2/5, p. 76, 722.
188 ACO 2/5, p. 77, 611.
189 Ep. 43; ACO 2/5, p. 89, 1112. Again pace Schnitzler, Im Kampf um Chalcedon, p. 9.
190 Ep. 46; ACO 2/5, p. 91, 3233.
182
136
chapter five
and remark that if the accusations are indeed true, Timothy is the wrong person (alienus) for the episcopate that he is said to have seized.191 Metropolitan Martyrius of Gortyna on Crete and his seven suffragans assert that if
Timothy has been made patriarch according to the rules, he should stay,
but if any of the conditions for his consecration have not been fulfilled, his
appointment is defective.192 With regard to the Council of Chalcedon and
the possible need to convene another gathering, most of the bishops represented in the CEn are content to validate the decisions of 451 in the light
of Nicaea, but the bishops of the province of Helenopontus adduce another
reason for not reconvening a council: those who desire synods to be convened, they maintain, have only one thing in mind, namely that very many
holy bishops should bankrupt their sees by selling their sacred vessels for
their expenses and transport. They advise the emperor rather to order the
individuals to stay at home in their own churches and pray for the longevity
of Leos reign.193
With the CEn we are dealing with a much filtered collection of episcopal
and other letters concerned with resolving religious conflict. Leaving aside
the vagaries of the transmission process, the first of these filters to be considered is the bias of the compiler and/or translator(s), which may account
to some extent for the arrangement and incomplete number of the surviving replies to Emperor Leos encyclical letter in the manuscripts that have
come down to us. In at least two cases we can be more or less certain of the
reason for omission, namely the letters of Symeon the Stylite and Bishop
Amphilochius of Side, both of whose names feature in the list of addressees.
Although the passages quoted by Evagrius from Symeons reply to Emperor
Leo show the Stylite accepting Chalcedon, later anti-Chalcedonian sources
suggest that his attitude to the council may have been ambiguous, if not
negative.194 According to Zachariah, at Chalcedon itself Amphilochius had
been hit over the head to make him sign, and indeed his name is not found
in the Greek version of the acta.195 Although Evagrius claims to have read
Amphilochius reply in Zachariahs Church History,196 it does not survive
191
Ep. 47; ACO 2/5, p. 95, 3436.

Ep. 48; ACO 2/5, p. 97, 2330.
193 Ep. 41; ACO 2/5, p. 85, 2935. This is not quite what Frend, Rise of the Monophysite
Movement, p. 161, understands by the comment.
194 See the evidence in Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, p. 148 n. 5.
195 HE 3.1, on which see Greatrex et al., The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah, p. 111 n. 83, p. 108
n. 61.
196 HE 2.10; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, pp. 61, 1362, 33.
192
137
in what has come down to us of that work but rather exists in fragmentary form in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian.197 According to Evagrius,
Amphilochius was alone in condemning the consecration of Timothy while
at the same time refusing to accept Chalcedon,198 a view that would have
been incompatible with the agenda of the compiler/translator(s) of the CEn.
It was a shrewd attempt on Emperor Leos part personally to resolve
the crisis over Chalcedon and the consecration of Timothy Aelurus, rather
than entrusting the task to Leo of Rome or Anatolius of Constantinople,
both of whom in one way or another would have met with resentment
or opposition. The majority of replies from the bishops to the emperors
encyclical letter may be regarded as a positive endorsement of his imperial
rule and overarching authority, rather than as a solution to doctrinal and
disciplinary crises over Chalcedon, which indeed continued throughout
the rest of the fifth century and beyond. Once again, the responses to the
CEn, even in the incomplete form in which they survive, underline the preeminent role of the episcopal letter in responding to crisis in Late Antiquity.
Case-Study 2. The Patriarchates of
Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria 564581
For evidence of episcopal management of religious conflict between antiChalcedonian groups in three of the four patriarchates of the East between
the years 564 and 581 we have a remarkable dossier of 45 letters, written
mostly by bishops, which encompasses at least five letter-types. In the DM
collection, published by J.-B. Chabot,199 we find five synodical letters (that
is, letters written by new bishops or patriarchs in which they publish their
confession of faith to other bishops),200 one widely-disseminated encyclical
letter which accompanied a theological discourse,201 one canonical letter (so
called, obviously, because it had canons appended to it),202 two entolika or
197 Chron. 9.5; ed. Chabot, vol. 1, p. 251 (text), vol. 2, pp. 145148. See further Blaudeau,
Alexandrie et Constantinople, pp. 158 n. 310, 540 and 564 n. 371; Greatrex et al., The Chronicle
of Pseudo-Zachariah, pp. 2526, p. 58.
198 HE 2.10; eds. Bidez, Parmentier, p. 61, 2731.
199 See the analysis of the DM in Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 265303.
200 DM, nrs. 1, 2, 13, 14 and 44. On this epistolographical genre see P. Allen, Sophronius
of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy. The Synodical Letter and Other Documents. Introduction, Texts, Translations, and Commentary, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 2009),
pp. 4751.
201 DM, nr. 3.
202 DM, nr. 6.
138
chapter five
mandata of a hortatory nature in letter-form,203 and four letters designated

as syndoktika or edicta, which encompass agreed statements of a theological
or disciplinary nature.204
Apart from a shortage of clergy and bishops in the anti-Chalcedonian
churches of Syria and Egypt, three converging crises gave rise to this anonymously compiled dossier. The first was the doctrine of tritheism, which in
its sixth-century form205 arose in the 550s among anti-Chalcedonians and
was an attempt to solve christological differences by positing that, just as
we distinguish three hypostases in the Trinity, so too must we distinguish
three natures, substances and godheads.206 The theological niceties of this
mostly nominal tritheism do not concern us here, except for the fact that
the doctrine caused a bitter split among the anti-Chalcedonians in the three
patriarchates with which we are concerned and is the subject of various letters in the DM. This doctrinal crisis prompted Bishop Theodosius, agreed
leader of the anti-Chalcedonian party after the death of Severus of Antioch in 538, to write his Theological Discourse against what he perceived as
heresy, a work that is considered the touchstone of orthodoxy in the DM. A
second point of doctrinal conflict was the popularity of the Agnoetai, who
were found initially among anti-Chalcedonians but later also among Chalcedonians. In yet another attempt to achieve christological balance during
this time, the Agnoetai upheld the existence of human ignorance in Christ,
a position that probably grew out of the argument that patristic testimonia
regarding Christs ignorance and knowledge were contradictory.207
203
DM, nrs. 18, 19.

DM, nrs. 26, 27, 29 and 31.
205 On the various manifestations of tritheism in the early church see B. Studer, art. Tritheism, in ed. A. Di Berardino, Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Eng. trans., vol. 2 (Cambridge,
1992), p. 853.
206 On sixth-century tritheism see H. Martin, La controverse trithite dans lempire byzantine au VIe sicle, diss. Louvain, 1960; A. Van Roey, La controverse trithite depuis la condamnation de Conon et Eugne jusqu la conversion de lvque Elie, in eds. W.C. Delsman
et al., Von Kanaan bis Kerala. Festschrift fr Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979. berreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und
Schler, Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Verffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte
des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments 211 (Neukirchen, Vluyn, 1981), pp. 487497; idem,
La controverse trithite jusqu l excommunication de Conon et dEugne (557569), Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), pp. 141165; R.Y. Ebied, L.R. Wickham, A. Van Roey,
Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 10 (Leuven, 1981);
Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 105263; Grillmeier, with T. Hainthaler, CCT 2, part 3,
pp. 279291 (Eng. trans. forthcoming).
207 See further Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 315.
204
139
The third crisis, which concerned the succession of anti-Chalcedonian

patriarchs in Antioch, had been waiting in the wings for some time, but took
centre-stage in 564 when Paul, nick-named the Black, was ordained to that
office. We shall have to look at Pauls career briefly to understand the depth
and breadth of this conflict.208
The anti-Chalcedonian patriarchate of Antioch was vacant after the
death of Sergius in c. 560 until in 564, Paul, an Alexandrian archimandrite
and syncellus (secretary) living in Constantinople, was elevated to the position. This was engineered by his patriarch, Theodosius of Alexandria, but it
ran counter to the wishes of the influential leader of the eastern churches,
Jacob Baradaeus, who probably wanted the position himself, and additionally went against the will of the Syrian bishops, who had not been consulted and would not have wanted a nominee of the patriarch of Alexandria.
Paul thus started his episcopal career in an invidious position from which
he was never to recover, attributable in no small measure to the polarization between his followers and those of Jacob.209 The repercussions of Pauls
consecration and the conflict it caused between the sees of Antioch and
Alexandria were to continue well into the seventh century.210 On Theodosius death on 22 June 566, Paul was left as the heir of the deceaseds property, which he used to try to buy his way into the position of patriarch of
Alexandria against his rival, the tritheist monk Athanasius, a grandson of the
late Empress Theodora. When this attempt was unsuccessful, Paul retired
to Syria, then to the Arabian camp of his protector, the anti-Chalcedonian
Arab sheik al-Harith. In 570 we find him debating against tritheists in Constantinople, where in the next year he subsequently accepted the edict of
208 On Paul see T. Hermann, Patriarch Paul von Antiochia und das Alexandrinische
Schisma von Jahre 575, Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 27 (1928), pp. 263
304, corrected by E.W. Brooks, The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of
575, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1930), pp. 468476; Honigmann, vques et vchs, pp. 195
205; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, pp. 291293 and 318328. The main sources
for Pauls biography, apart from the evidence in the DM, are the Ecclesiastical History of
John of Ephesus and the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian (which for the most part follows
John). See the helpful chronological table by A. Fortescue in Maspero, Histoire des patriarches
d Alexandrie, pp. 352353.
209 Cf. Grillmeier, CCT 2, part 3, p. 199: Damit beginnt eine leidvolle Geschichte.
210 The anti-Chalcedonian bishop, John of Ephesus, and eye-witness of many of the events,
emphasizes the violence and confusion that occurred, not only in Egypt and Syria but
throughout the eastern empire: HE 4.10, 12, 16, 19, 20; ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesini
Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, CSCO 105 (text), Scr. Syr. 54 (Louvain, Paris, 1935), pp. 191,
194197, 201202, 205206, 207; CSCO 106 (trans.), Scr. Syr. 55 (Louvain, 1936; repr. 1964),
pp. 154, 143, 147, 151, 155.
140
chapter five
union designed by Emperor Justin II and communicated with Chalcedonians. With other bishops Paul withdrew from communion and was incarcerated as a result, upon which the group communicated again. Since by
now Paul was regarded as a security risk by the imperial government, he was
kept in prison and the eastern synod broke off relations with him, although
in 574 he was able to escape to the camp of al-Moundhir, the successor of
al-Harith, from where he went to Egypt disguised as a soldier. In 575211 the
candidature of the moderate Theodore, a Syrian archimandrite resident in
Egypt, was proposed for the patriarchate of Alexandria, a man who would
have supported Paul at a time when his stocks were very low. One of the
consecrating bishops was Bishop Longinus of Nubia, a former apocrisiarius of Paul. The manipulation of this election of an outsider enraged the
Alexandrians, who refused to recognise Theodore and proceeded to incite
violence and tumult.212 They put forward their own candidate, Peter, who
lost no time in claiming his rights as ecumenical patriarch and deposing
Paul uncanonically, initiating what we now call the Alexandrine schism of
575. Jacob Baradaeus travelled to Egypt to assess the situation, but ultimately
decided in favour of Peter and against the absent Paul. Forced to retire to
Constantinople, like many out-of-favour anti-Chalcedonians, Paul lived in
hiding until his death in 581. He was buried in a convent under cover of darkness with a false name and no funeral.
The compiler/compilers of the DM was/were quite obviously supporters
of Paul and defenders of his divisive career, but beyond that it is difficult to
be more precise. The first part of the dossier (Epp. 12) contains the synodical letter which Theodosius sent to the exiled Severus of Antioch in 535, and
Severus reply.213 These are included to highlight Theodosius authority over
the Chalcedonian church given Severus continuing exile (518538), as well
as the latters approval of Theodosius consecration as patriarch. The seal of
approval which the great Severus gave to Theodosius is, moreover, a guarantee of the validity of Theodosius future actions, two of the most important of
which, from the perspective of the compiler(s) of the DM, were his condemnation of tritheism and his appointment of Paul as patriarch. The second
part (Epp. 37)214 deals with the tritheist dispute, in which the Theological Discourse, designed to manage and indeed end the crisis, assumes an
211
212
213
214
On the following events see Brooks, The Patriarch Paul of Antioch, pp. 473474.
HE 4.10, 11; ed. Brooks, pp. 191194, 143145.
See Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 271272.
141
important place.215 Letters 817216 are concerned with Pauls consecration as

patriarch of Antioch. Within the latter group Letters 8 and 9 are confidential communications from Theodosius to the bishops of the East explaining
why he wants Paul to fill the vacancy left by Sergius death, and enjoining
them to consecrate Paul clandestinely and have him send his synodical letter
as soon as possible. Letter 10, addressed to Theodosius by the consecrating
bishops Jacob Baradaeus, Eugenius of Seleucia (leader of the tritheists) and
Eunomius of Amida, confirms that they have carried out his instructions. In
reply, Theodosius writes an encomium of Paul (Ep. 10): he is the right man
for difficult times and will bring peace to the churchprobably the resolution of the tritheist dispute is meant here. Paul has already dispatched his
synodical letter, which follows in the dossier (Ep. 13). In this, his first official
communication as patriarch, he complains that Theodosius has deceived
him, just as Abraham deceived his son Isaac (cf. Gen 22), by having him
consecrated (if this is not a modesty topos, we might assume that Paul knew
already the difficulties that lay ahead of him), but nonetheless presents his
confession of faith, including the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Cyrils Twelve Anathemata against Nestorius, the Henotikon or instrument of union promulgated by Emperor Zeno in 482, and Theodosius Theological Discourse itself. Paul condemns tritheism explicitly, leaving no doubt
where he stands on the issue, and additionally rejects the doctrine of the
Agnoetai. In reply (Ep. 14) Theodosius makes a similar confession of faith,
and for his part too condemns tritheism and Agnoetic doctrine. The next
three letters in this group are not from bishops but rather from archimandrites and monks, two to Theodosius sent by Jacob Baradaeus (Epp. 15 and
17) and one to Paul (Ep. 16), expressing their approval of Pauls consecration.
From Jacobs involvement at this juncture it seems that he was putting his
moral and charismatic authority behind Pauls appointment.217
By now elderly and still in exile in Constantinople, Theodosius decided
in 565 to manage his Egyptian patriarchate through the medium of Paul,
to whom he gave the mandate to go there and perform ordinations in his
stead. The fourth group of letters in the DM (Epp. 1822),218 all written by
215 For the text and translation of this document and related pieces see Van Roey, Allen,
Monophysite Texts, pp. 144263.
216 See Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 275278.
217 On Jacobs authority, which was not canonical, see D.D. Bundy, Jacob Baradaeus. The
State of Research, a Review of Sources and a New Approach, Le Muson 91 (1978), pp. 4586;
Grillmeier, Jesus der Christus 2/3, pp. 197200.
142
chapter five
Theodosius, relate to this mission.219 When Theodosius died on 22 June 566,

the conflict between tritheists and anti-tritheists began in earnest, and is
documented in the sixth part of the DM (Epp. 2541).220 As explained in Letter 25, written by six anti-Chalcedonian bishops residing in Constantinople
to the church in the East, while Theodosius was alive people subscribed to
his Theological Discourse; after his death, however, some retracted their signatures and openly championed tritheism. The episcopal writers try to bring
this divisive situation under control by documenting the chain of events on
the basis of four syndoktika, one anathema and two letters, the texts of which
the compiler then gives in full (Epp. 2631).221 In these documents it is alleged
that Jacob Baradaeus and Bishop Theodore of Arabia are being touted as
tritheists and Paul the Black is being opposed and defamed as patriarch.
The conflict around tritheism appears particularly virulent in the eastern
monasteries.
In Letter 33 Paul writes to Jacob and Theodore about these allegations,
claiming that he is attacked verbally and in writing for his opposition to
tritheism. Because his detractors claim that Jacob and Theodore are not
only tritheists but also opposed to him, Paul requests that the two bishops make known in writing their commitment to Theodosius Theological
Discourse and to him. Letter 34 is the reply of Jacob and Theodore, acceding to this request and stating that they abide by everything that was done
by Theodosius (this implicitly includes Pauls consecration). The extent of
Jacobs authority in the East, particularly in the face of the unpopularity
of Pauls consecration, can be seen from the next three letters (Epp. 35
37).222 In the first of these, written by the eastern archimandrites to the antiChalcedonian clergy in Constantinople, relates that there is peace, thanks
to the intervention of Jacob, who, however, has informed the archimandrites
that conflict has arisen over the consecration of Paul. The writers accept Paul
as patriarch. From this point as far as Letter 41, the emphasis is on managing
the conflict over tritheism, which culminated in the excommunication of
the leaders of the doctrine, Bishops Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Seleucia in 569. It seems that Conon and Eugenius wrote to Jacob, and that Letter
36 is Jacobs reply to them, in which he asks them to end the scandal of
219 By contrast, the two letters in the fifth bracket (Epp. 23, 24) are out of chronological
order because they concern Pauls consecration.
143
tritheism either by being reconciled with their opponents or else coming

to the East to discuss the matter with him. In any case, Jacob states that
nothing done by Theodosius can be changed (this again implicitly includes
Pauls consecration) and that opposition to them is growing in Alexandria
and elsewhere. Once more taking the initiative in resolving the double
conflict of the tritheist controversy and the unpopularity of Paul, in Letter 37
Jacob writes to the anti-Chalcedonian bishops residing in Constantinople,
asking them to forgive Eugenius and his followers if they renounce their
heresy, but stating anew that he accepts all that Theodosius did, namely the
condemnation of tritheism and the consecration of Paul. In the following
letter (Ep. 38), from the bishops in the East to those in Constantinople,
we read again of Theodosius condemnation of tritheism. The writers allege
that, while the tritheists maintain that they accept Theodosius and his
Theological Discourse, in fact they do not, and they ask the recipients to sign
the letter if they are in communion with them. For their part, the bishops
of the East accept everything that Theodosius did (including yet again, no
doubt, Pauls consecration). Letters 3941 deal with the increasing episcopal
intervention in the case of Conon and Eugenius. In Letter 39 the synod of
bishops in Constantinople writes to the anti-Chalcedonian church at large
about their concerted endeavours and those of the eastern archimandrites
to bring the tritheite leaders to heel, recounting how they had drawn up
an encyclical (the previous letter) in which they carefully did not mention
the attacks of Conon and Eugenius against orthodoxy or against Paul and
other bishops. Even with this concession and the insistence of al-Harith,
the tritheists refused to sign, as appears from a letter sent to them by Jacob
and other bishops, which is transcribed in Letter 39. All interventions having
failed, Conon and Eugenius were condemned.
The seventh group of documents (Epp. 42 and 43)223 comprises an outright defence of Paul the Black composed by a certain Sergius, a hermit in
a monastery of Nicaea. The Defence itself (Ep. 42), written in letter-form,
moves away from the tritheist debate and Pauls part in it to deal in particular with two of the most contentious events in his career: his part in the
consecration of Theodore as patriarch of Alexandria in 575 and his communion with the Chalcedonians after the promulgation of the edict of Emperor
Justin II in 571. In the course of the long Defence, Sergius cites from no fewer
than seventeen documents, mostly episcopal letters, including an Apology
written by Paul himself which is attested to only here. It is not clear whether
223
144
chapter five
this piece was composed in letter-form. In any case, the entire Defence is
a tribute to the scholarly, if partisan, activity of Sergius and his access to
impeccable sources. On the basis of this document Honigmann224 concluded
that Sergius was the compiler of the whole dossier, but the hermit is designated explicitly as author only in Letter 42.225 In the following letter (Ep. 43)
it is revealed that the author, presumably Sergius, agrees to meet with a certain priest, John the Lame, to discuss the case of Paul (who by this time,
November 580,226 was in hiding in or around Constantinople).
In the eighth and last bracket of letters (Epp. 4445)227 we jump back to
the short-lived consecration of Theodore as patriarch of Alexandria in 575
and the synodical letter which he wrote to Paul on that occasion (Ep. 44).
Pauls reply is contained in Letter 45.228 It is very probable that these last two
letters in the dossier were added by Sergius the hermit, who was exercised by
Theodores consecration and Pauls supposed role in it229rightly so, for this
incident ushered in the schism between the sees of Alexandria and Antioch
that was to last at least until 616. If it is the case that Sergius was responsible
for the addition of these two letters, it would strengthen the argument for
his compilation of the dossier as a whole.
While the picture of religious conflict documented in the episcopal letters and other pieces in the DM has to be supplemented by the first-hand
account provided by John of Ephesus, which dwells on the violence that was
provoked by the tritheist dispute and the role of Paul in it, and to a lesser
extent by the record preserved by Michael the Syrian, the dossier is a masterful defence of the controversial patriarch of Antioch. At the same time, it
illustrates the extent to which the conflict aroused by tritheism influenced
ecclesiastical politics in the East from the 550s to the 580s.230 This conflict
continued to dog the patriarchates of Damian of Alexandria (578606) and
224
vques et vchs, p. 201.

In Ep. 43 the name of the writer is missing, but it appears to be the work of Sergius. See
further Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, p. 297 n. 47.
226 On the date see Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, p. 297 with n. 48.
228 This epistolary exchange is reported by John of Ephesus, HE 4.10; ed. Brooks, p. 191, trans.
p. 143.
229 For this speculation see the references in Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, p. 300 with
n. 52.
230 See further P. Allen, Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century, in eds.
Leemans et al., Episcopal Elections, pp. 2338, for the argument that tritheism lay behind
many of the episcopal elections and depositions in the patriarchate of Antioch, on both the
anti-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian sides.
225
145
Peter of Antioch (formerly of Callinicum; 581590),231 to be laid to rest in

some measure by the union of 616 between the two sees.232 It is a telling fact
that Damians synodical letter, preserved by Michael the Syrian, stresses his
opposition to tritheism, and after his signature ends with the prayer that the
unity of the Trinity be preserved indissolubly.233
231 See R.Y. Ebied, Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship,
in ed. R.H. Fisher, A Tribute to Arthus Vbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and its
Environment (Chicago, 1977), pp. 277282; Ebied, Wickham, Van Roey, Petrus Callinicensis.
232 On which see Michael the Syrian, Chron.; ed., trans. J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le
Syrien Patriarche Jacobite d Antioche (11661199) (Paris, 18991901; repr. Brussels, 1963); here
10.26, vol. 2, pp. 381394; D. Olster, Chalcedonian and Monophysite: The Union of 616,
Bulletin de la Socit d Archologie Copte 27 (1985), pp. 93108; F. Winkelmann, gypten und
Byzanz vor der arabischen Eroberung, Byzantinoslavica 40 (1979), pp. 161182 at 168; Allen,
Sophronius of Jerusalem, pp. 11, 2426, 59, 60, 62, 145.
233 Chron. 10.14; ed. Chabot, vol. 2, pp. 325332, signature and ending at p. 332.
chapter six
SOCIAL ABUSES
Introduction
Social abuses were no less common in Late Antiquity than today, though
they rarely formed the subject of episcopal letters. We consider in this
chapter several of the most common abuses: usury, extortionate taxation,
theft, murder, the illegal slave trade and indentured child-labour. Obviously
priests were sometimes involved in these acts, and it can be difficult to
distinguish between social abuses by clerics and ecclesiastical corruption,
which is also discussed here. Many of the abuses under discussionsuch
as the capture of freeborn persons, and the associated theft and violence
were the direct result of war. How far did episcopal strategies go towards
correcting such abuses, and were the letters that bishops wrote on these subjects effectual? Our case-studies focus on social and clerical abuses during
two brief but important episcopates in the fifth century: those of Synesius
of Cyrene and Gelasius of Rome.
Usury
Lending at (often extortionate) interest rates was denounced in the earliest
Christian writings, but like slavery and poverty it continued to exist as a
part of late-antique life in the fifth and sixth centuries. Denunciations of
the practice of usury are found more often in homilies than letters, the
homilies of the Cappadocians Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa being
the most famous cases in point.1 The practice of usury by clergy and lay
1 See B.L. Ihssen, Basil and Gregorys Sermons on Usury: Credit Where Credit is Due,
JECS 16/3 (2008), pp. 403430; Ihssens chapter, That Which Has Been Wrung from Tears:
Usury, the Greek Fathers and Catholic Social Teaching, in eds. J. Leemans, B. Matz, J. Verstraeten, Patristic Social Ethics. Issues and Challenges for 21st Century Christian Social Thought,
Catholic University of America Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, DC, 2011), pp. 124
160, provides a useful framework, with references mostly relating to the fourth century, especially the Cappadocians; see the literature cited there, p. 125 n. 3. On usury in general see
148
chapter six
people was condemned at the Council of Carthage in 419,2 following the

ruling of the Council of Nicaea,3 and Augustine takes the established line
that while it was permitted under secular law, it was to be condemned by the
church.4 Byzantine writers and canonists of later ages took a more pragmatic
approach, while condemning usury in principle.5 For all patristic writers
who dealt with almsgiving, which is a proper if self-interested investment
with God, usury was its antithesis. At least as early as the fourth century,
the poet Commodian entertained the idea that almsgiving which resulted
from usury would be rejected by God.6 This idea was taken up by Ambrose
of Milan,7 and in a single letter of Augustine. Money that had been stolen,
and subsequently given to the poor as alms, was a gift of no spiritual value
to the donor.8
One of the few mentions of usury in our sources is contained in Leo
of Romes letter to the bishops of Catania, Etruria, Picenum and all the
provinces of Italy on 10 October 443, where Leo forbids the taking of interest,
R.P. Maloney, The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking, VC 27 (1973), pp. 241265; T. Moser, Die patristische Zinslehre
und ihre Ursprnge: vom Zinsgebot zum Wucherverbot (Zrich, 1997).
2 Canon 5, Canones in causa Apiarii; ed. Munier, CCSL 149, p. 134, 4243, 4748: nec
omnino cuiquam clericorum liceat de qualibet re fenus accipere. Proinde quod in laicis
reprehenditur id multo magis debet et in clericis praedamnari. It is completely forbidden for
any cleric to accept interest on any transaction . Accordingly, what is a subject for reproach
among lay persons, is all the more reprehensible amongst clerics. Our translation.
3 Canon 7 of Nicaea Concerning clerics who practise usury; ed., trans. N.P. Tanner,
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, (London, Washington, DC, 1990), vol. 1 (Nicaea ILateran
V), pp. 1414*. See p. 14* n. 1 for the pre-history of this canon.
4 See e.g. Serm. 77A.4 (NBA 30/1, pp. 550, 552); Serm. 86.3.3 (NBA 30/2, p. 10); Serm. 113.2.2
(NBA 30/2, pp. 414, 416); Serm. 239.5 (NBA 32/2, p. 626); En. in Ps. 36. Serm. 3.6 (NBA 25, pp. 818,
820); En. in Ps. 54.14 (NBA 26, pp. 100, 102). For the topic in Augustine see C.L. Hanson, Usury
and the World of St. Augustine of Hippo, Augustinian Studies 19 (1988), pp. 141164; and A. Di
Berardino, La Dfence du pauvre. Saint Augustin et lusure, in eds. P.-Y. Fux, J.-M. Roessli,
O. Wermelinger, Saint Augustin: Africanit et universalit. Actes du colloque international
AlgerAnnaba, 17 avril 2002, Augustinus Afer, Paradosis 45, 2 vols. (Fribourg, Switzerland,
2003), pp. 257263 (on canonical literature).
5 See A.F. Laiou, The Church, Economic Thought and Economic Practice, in ed. R.F. Taft,
The Christian East, Its Institutions and Its Thought: A Critical Reflection, OCA 251 (Rome, 1996),
pp. 435464, esp. pp. 441451; B.L. Ihssen, They Who Give from Evil: The Response of the Eastern
Church to Money-lending in the Early Christian Era (Eugene, OR, 2012).
6 Commodian, Instructiones divinae 20; ed. J. Martin, CCSL 128 (Turnhout, 1960), p. 59.
See further B. Ramsey, Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth and Early Fifth
Centuries, Theological Studies 42 (1982), pp. 226259, at 250251.
7 See, e.g. Ambrose, De officiis 1.145; ed. Davidson, De officiis, vol. 1, p. 200.
8 Ep. 153.24; NBA 22, pp. 550, 552; see also Serm. 359A.13; NBA 34, p. 338 on almsgiving
from funds raised by theft, fraud and extortion.
social abuses
149
not just by clerics but even laypersons.9 While the prohibition of usury for
clergy was quite normal, Leos extension of this prohibition to the laity
was not. Leo insists that the only interest one should seek is what shall
be received from Christ in the next world in return for good deeds here
and now.10 This did not stop the church Fathers from taking over all the
terminology of secular usury and using it of holy usury, or lending at
interest to God. Augustine is especially explicit that by giving alms, You
make a kind of mercantile loan. You invest here, you get paid back there.11
God will even pay interest on the loan.12
Indeed, some bishops were only too aware of the irony, as this quotation
from Severus of Antiochs letter to the cubicularius Misael on the economic
plight of the see of Antioch, which could not afford to keep its clergy, shows:
But when I had had experience of the distressful state of affairs, and had seen
in what a pitiable and wretched condition the fortunes of our holy church
were, and that a great load of debts and of interest was hanging over it and
threatening to overwhelm it, I forgot the spiritual laws: and now it seems to
me a great thing to find men to lend; and meanwhile I make use of the term
interest as if it were some lawful name.13
Similarly in Letter 1.8 to the dux Timostratus, Severus laments:

That is that our holy church is very poor and needy, and that it is so much
distressed and laden by the weight of interest, that it is hardly able even to
hold up its head, but debts upon debts are added to its account, and interest
upon interest is piled up against it . [I] am wearied and stupefied like a man
who is being strangled by creditors, and am compelled to find sustenance for
need without sufficient incomes and revenues 14
9 Leo, Ep. 4; ed. H. Wurm, Epistula Decretalis S. Leonis Magni Romani Pontificis, Apollinaris 12 (1939), pp. 7993.
10 Leo, Ep. 4.4; ed. Wurm, p. 91, 57: Fenus autem hoc solum aspicere et exercere debemus,
ut quod hic misericorditer tribuimus, ab eo Domino, qui multipliciter et in perpetuum
mansura retribuet, recipere valeamus. But the only usury we ought to seek and receive is
this: that what we have given in mercy here, we may be able to recover from the Lord himself,
who will repay many times over what will last forever. (Our translation).
11 Augustine, Serm. 42.2; NBA 29, p. 746: Quasi fenus traiectitium facis. Hic das, ibi recipis.
See Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty, pp. 130131.
12 Augustine, Serm. 86.3.3; NBA 30/2, p. 10.
13 Severus, Ep. 1.17; ed. Brooks, Select Letters, vol. 1, p. 71 (text), vol. 2, p. 64 (trans.).
14 Ep. 1.8; ed. Brooks, Select Letters, vol. 1, pp. 4748 (text), vol. 2, pp. 4344 (trans.) (513
518 ce). On the miserable financial situation of Antioch in the time of Severus see R. Roux,
Lexgse biblique dans les Homlies cathdrales de Svre dAntioche, Studia Ephemeridis
Augustinianum 84 (Rome, 2002), p. 139 n. 19. Cf. F. Alpi, Svre dAntioche et le lgislation
ecclsiastique de Justinien, forthcoming in Parole de l Orient.
150
chapter six
Extortionate Taxation
Extortion by government officials was also a problem that bishops had to

deal with. The example of extortion by the governor of Ptolemais is discussed below in Case-study 1. More such cases were confronted by Theodoret in Cyrrhus, as we saw in our case-study on his dealing with natural
disasters (Chapter 4). The same problems were evident in the West. For
example, Augustine accused Romulus, a powerful convert, of being overly
harsh in exacting taxes from his tenant farmers.15 Augustines concern to
defend the interests of the oppressed is evident in many of his letters, especially the recently discovered Divjak corpus.16 However, as Lepelley observes,
the bishop of Hippo was largely powerless to help them in the face of
oppression by even those imperial officials who were meant to defend their
interests.17 The office of defensor plebis or defensor civitatis was founded by
Valentinian I in 368 so that the poor of each city would have an advocate
against oppression.18 Augustine laments the lack of suitable candidates for
the office from a suitable social rank and elected by citizens among whom
they enjoy a good reputation.19 Its ecclesiastical counterpart was the defensor ecclesiae, instituted first in Rome (367368) to act on behalf of the poor
and clergy in legal cases and later in North Africa after an appeal by the
African bishops in 407.20 The first instance of the office of defensor ecclesiae in papal letters appears in Innocent Is letter to Laurentius (probably
bishop of Siena).21 Innocent reports that he had successfully used defen-
15 Augustine, Ep. 247; NBA 23, pp. 846851, on tenant farmers on the plains of Bne. See
Divjak, Epistulae, col. 1004.
16 P. Allen, E. Morgan, Augustine on Poverty, in Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty,
pp. 119170; see also Brown, Poverty and Leadership; Finn, Almsgiving, passim.
17 Lepelley, Facing Wealth and Poverty, p. 17.
18 CTh 1.29.18; vol. 1, pp. 6466. On the fifth-century development of this office, see
R.M. Frakes, Contra potentium iniurias: The Defensor Civitatis and Late Roman Justice,
Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte 90 (Munich, 2001),
pp. 165193.
19 Augustine, Ep. 22.2*; NBA 23A, pp. 192194. See F. Jacques, Le dfenseur de cit daprs
la Lettre 22* de saint Augustin, Revue des tudes augustiniennes 32 (1986), pp. 5673. Cf.
Augustine, Ep. 20*.6; NBA 23A, pp. 164166, where a defensor eccelesiae is named as part of
the company of Antony of Fussala.
20 Collectio Avellana 6; ed. O. Gnther, Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde
ab anno CCCLXVII usque ad annum DLIII datae, Avellana quae dicitur Collectio, CSEL 35
(Prague, 1895), vol. 1, p. 349; Reg. eccl. Cathag. Excerpta 87; ed. Munier, CCSL 149, p. 215. See
C. Humfress, A New Legal Cosmos: Late Roman Lawyers and the Early Medieval Church, in
eds. P. Lineham, J.L. Nelson, The Medieval World (London, New York, 2001), pp. 557575.
21 Innocent I, Ep. 41; PL 20, 607608. See the discussion of G.D. Dunn, Innocent Is Letter
social abuses
151
sores ecclesiae to remove heretical Photinians from Rome. The first reference
in LP is during the pontificate of Felix III, who sent an unnamed defensor as
legate to Constantinople in the course of the Acacian schism.22 Defensores
ecclesiae were also used to investigate claims of corruption by clergy, as in
the case of the deacon Agnellus, mentioned in Case-study 2 below. Bishops
Rufinus and Justus are ordered to initiate a trial in the presence of Laurentius, defensor of the Roman church, to investigate the calumnies brought
against the deacon Agnellus of Verulana.23 Other cases of corruption within
the church are investigated below. Unfortunately the defensores ecclesiae
themselves were not always above reproach. Pelagius I reproves the defensor of Apulia for falsifying the date in collecting payments and accumulating
funds, thus causing financial and administrative headaches for the bishop
of Rome.24
Human Trafficking
The trade in human beings was as common in Late Antiquity as it is today.
Among the 29 Divjak letters that came to light in the early 1980s are several which give an astonishing picture of late-antique society, and describe
social abuses hitherto unknown to us in such detail, including human trafficking. Trafficking was an abuse which Augustine attributed to a crisis in
the legal system because the penalty for such trafficking was very harsh and
consequently not applied.
From the big picture of human trafficking in North Africa Augustine
passes to the smaller picture, namely instances of the activities of slavetraders in Hippo itself, where women tricked other women into being captured and sold, a farmer sold his wife, and one of Augustines monks was
nearly abducted.25 It is important to note that only the slavery of free-born
citizens was deemed a social abuse. Normal slavery, in accordance with
Justinianic law, was considered a necessary part of the social order, and was
to Lawrence: Photinians, Bonosians, and the Defensores Ecclesiae, JTS ns 63 (2012), pp. 136
155. Cf. C. Humfress, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2007), pp. 262263,
on the defensor ecclesiae.
22 LP 1, p. 252.
23 Frag. 15 to Bishops Rufinus and Justus; ed. Thiel, pp. 491492.
24 Pelagius I, Ep. 12 to Dulcitius, defensor of Apulia. January 558 (Jaff 949); eds. Gass,
Batlle, pp. 4142.
25 Augustine, Ep. 10*.6; NBA 23A, p. 84.
152
chapter six
endorsed by most bishops, while they enjoined fair treatment of masters

and respectful obedience of slaves.26
Indentured Child Labour
The indentured labour of free children was an unfortunate bi-product of a
system of radically insecure economic structures in Late Antiquity.27 Important witnesses to the existence of this phenomenon are Letter 10* and Letter
24* of Augustine,28 dating perhaps from between 422 and 432.29 In the first
of these letters Augustine denounces the current practice of human trafficking, whereby citizens are kidnapped and sold into slavery. He adds:
Only a few are found to have been sold by their parents and these people
buy them, not as Roman law permits, as indentured servants for a period of
25 years, but in fact they buy them as slaves and sell them across the sea as
slaves.30
We are thus dealing with two distinct systems of exploitation: the first
involves the kidnapping of free persons who are sold into slavery; the second
concerns parents who sell their children as indentured labourers for 25
years, a practice countenanced, says Augustine, by Roman law. Here he
attaches no stigma to the practice, but the fact that he adduces it again
in Letter 24* suggests that he was uncertain about it. In this second letter,
he asks Eustochius, an expert in jurisprudence, about the legality of such
indentured labour, which sometimes turns out to be the perpetual servitude
of free-born children and young people. We can assume that it was the
reversal of the inalienable Roman right of free-born citizens to remain free
that lay at the bottom of Augustines concern, for, as Eno observes, the
practice of indentured labour was the beginning of the long process of
26 On these themes at the end of our period, see A. Serfass, Slavery and Pope Gregory the
Great, JECS 14/1 (2006), pp. 77103.
27 On Augustines treatment of the themes of hiring of child labour and sale of children
in the Divjak letters, see M. Humbert, Enfants louer et vendre: Augustin et lautorit
parentale, in Les lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 189204. On children generally in the Christian
early centuries, in pagan, Christian and Jewish contexts, see C.B. Horn, J.W. Martens, eds., Let
the Little Children Come to Me: Children and Childhood in Early Christianity (Washington, DC,
2009), pp. 166175.
28 Ep. 10* to Alypius in Italy (NBA 23A, pp. 7887); Ep. 24* (NBA 23A, pp. 212215).
Trans. with introductions by R.B. Eno, Saint Augustine. Letters Volume VI (1*29*), FOTC 81
(Washington, DC, 1989), pp. 7480, and pp. 171174, respectively.
29 On the dating see Eno, ibid., p. 172.
30 NBA 23A, pp. 8081; trans. Eno, ibid., p. 77.
social abuses
153
being transformed into a proto-serfdom of the type we usually associate

with the Middle Ages.31 These two Divjak letters have received appropriate
scholarly attention.32 The fact that indentured child labour is not considered
in scholarship on child labour in earlier periods33 reinforces the impression
that it was a late-antique phenomenon.
Alienation of Church Property
Cases of embezzlement and the alienation of church property are rife
throughout these centuries. Augustine complained to Xanthippus, primate
of Numidia, about a priest who embezzled money there.34 Severus regulated the process of hearing the charges against a presbyter, Julian of Tarsus,
who was accused of taking church property.35 Ruricius of Limoges seems to
refer to Bishop Chronopius exceeding his rights or jurisdiction in the diocese of Gemiliacum (Jumilhac-le-Grand in Dordogne) with respect to property.36 Some of these remonstrations seem below episcopal dignity: Ruricius
was forced to reprimand a cleric who stole pigs belonging to the church
in Auxerre (Ep. 2.14 and Ep. 2.51). Leo I condemns the bishops of Taurmenium (Taormino) and Panormus who have been impoverishing their clergy
through the misappropriation of church funds.37 The clergy of Taurmenium
had complained of being reduced to destitution because its bishop had
squandered all its estates by selling, giving away, and otherwise disposing
of them.38 The clergy of Panormus had made similar charges against their
former bishop. In a decree that is meant to be binding on all bishops of Sicily,
Leo declares that any priest, deacon or cleric of any rank who has connived
31
Eno, ibid., p. 172.

See in particular M. Humbert, Enfants louer et vendre; C. Lepelley, Libert, colonat
et esclavage, both in Les lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 189204, and pp. 329342 respectively.
33 See for example K.R. Bradley, Discovering the Roman Family. Studies in Roman Social
History (New York, Oxford, 1991), where it is not considered in Chapter 5, Child Labour in
the Roman World, pp. 103124; Horn, Martens, Let the Little Children Come to Me, where few
late-antique sources are used.
34 Augustine, Ep. 65; NBA 21/1, pp. 538541. 401 or 402ce.
35 Severus, Select Letters 1.40; ed. Brooks, vol. 1, p. 126 (text); vol. 2, p. 113 (trans.).
36 Ruricius, Ep. 2.6.3; ed. Krusch, MGH AA 8, p. 316, 1823. The details of Chronopius
infraction are unclear: see Mathisen, trans., Ruricius of Limoges, pp. 142144. Ruricius mentions a previous letter to Chronopius about this matter, which was presumably ignored.
37 Leo I, Ep. 17 to all bishops in Sicily, on 21 October 447; PL 54, 703706. See Allen, Neil,
Mayer, Preaching Poverty, 200.
38 PL 54, 704B: eo quod omnia ejus praedia, vendendo, donando, et diversis modis
alienando, episcopus dissiparet. Our translation.
32
154
chapter six
to defraud the church is to be punished with deposition and excommunication.39 Not only the bishops but all the clergy must preserve unimpaired
the gifts of those who have contributed their own substance to churches
for the salvation of their souls.40 This last statement reflects the common
fear that those who made bequests would lose the spiritual benefit of those
gifts if they were alienated from church property. The rationale is the same
as that underlying Augustines proscription of giving stolen goods as alms.
There exists in these bishops minds a very real link between the material
good and the eternal future of the giver, even after death. It is interesting to
note that Leo himself did not hesitate to reconstitute the emperor Constantines gifts to the Roman church of six large silver jugs, after the Vandals had
stripped the church of its holy vessels in 452/53.41 In 559 Pelagius agreed to
Bishop Hostilius request for permission to go after clerics who had removed
sacred vessels from churches.42
Corruption, within the Church and without
Bishops simply overlooked misdemeanours when it suited them, or did not
regard them as such. Witness Gelasius attitude towards the affair of Faustus,
who was not able to claim the balance of a bond that he gave to the defensor
ecclesiae Eucharistus, after Faustus failed to gain the episcopate in Volterra,
which he had confidently expected to attain. This affair will be explored
more fully in Case-study 2 below.43 Bishops of Rome themselves could be
subject to abuse and corruption, and even excommunicated by other western bishops, as we saw in the case of Vigilius, bishop of Rome (537555), in
Chapter 3.44 The use of forgery and corruption to break his position during
the Three Chapters controversy is outlined in two western letters.45 At the
39 PL 54, 705A706A: Nam presbyteri, vel diaconi, aut cujuscumque ordinis clerici, qui
conniventiam in Ecclesiae damna miscuerint, sciant se et ordine et communione privandos.
40 PL 54, 706A: et eorum munera illibata permaneant, qui pro animarum suarum salute
propriam substantiam ecclesiis contulerunt. Our translation.
41 LP 1, p. 239.
42 Pelagius I, Ep. 51 to Bishop Hostilius (Jaff 1010); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 132133 (Middle
to end of March 559).
43 The case of venality is also discussed by S.R. Huebner, Currencies of Power: The
Venality of Offices in the Later Roman Empire, in eds. A. Cain, N. Lenski, The Power of Religion
in Late Antiquity (Aldershot, 2009), pp. 167180.
44 Case-study 3. See the bibliography cited there.
45 Encyclical Letter; ed. Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, pp. 110; PL 69, 5359 (written 5 February,
552). Cf. Epistula clericorum Mediolanensium ad legatos Francorum, qui Constantinopolim
social abuses
155
end of 545, on the eve of the Gothic invasion, Vigilius left Rome with almost
his entire clergy under Byzantine military escort, stopping for more than a
year in Sicily en route to Constantinople. Sotinel observes that most of our
sources for the sordid affair of Vigilius are the letters and encyclicals of Vigilius himself and other western letters and (eastern) chronicles.46 We would
therefore expect them to present the western view. For instance, the reasons
for Vigilius arrest during Mass and removal to Sicily for almost a year in 545
may have been more to do with preserving his safety during the Gothic invasions than imperial pressure to concur on the issue of the Three Chapters.47
From 547 until 554 he was subjected to imperial pressure to accede to the
condemnation of the Three Chapters. His attempts to find a compromise
met with serious opposition in the West, particularly in Africa where the
pope was excommunicated. At first he tried to avoid his obligations to Justinian, and took refuge in the monastery of Hormisdas, or the neighbouring
church of Saints Peter and Paul.48 The ninth-century chronicler Theophanes
Confessor relates that when Vigilius was being dragged out of the sanctuary,
he tried to resist by hanging onto the pillars of the altar, but since he was a
large, heavy man, the pillars collapsed under his weight.49 Thus we find even
eastern sources concurring with the western record of abuses perpetrated
against this bishop of Rome, however culpable he might have been.
An abuse repeated often enough may cease to offend. So Cyril of Alexandria exploited the vague definition of gifts offered to the imperial court
to try to influence their decision on matters of doctrine. Cyril is reported to
have given 200 pounds of gold and quantities of furnishings, just for starters,
all given as gifts to the imperial court before the Council of Ephesus.50 In
doing so, Cyril followed a venerable tradition of Alexandrian patriarchs of
using the wealth at their disposal for bribes in the imperial court. Compare
proficiscebatur; ed. Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, pp. 1825 (written before 23 December 551). Both
are translated by Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, vol. 1, pp. 170179 and pp. 165170
respectively.
46 Sotinel, Emperors and Popes, p. 283.
47 Sotinel, Emperors and Popes, p. 281.
48 C. Mango, R. Scott (trans.), The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. Byzantine and
Near Eastern history, AD 284813 (Oxford, 1997), p. 328 n. 5.
49 Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, AM 6039 (546/47 ce); ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia (Leipzig, 1885; repr. Hildesheim, 1980), vol. 1, p. 225.
50 As reported by the eunuch Chryseros or Chrysoretes: see Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria.
Select Letters, p. 66 n. 8, where Wickam gives a list of the gifts. Wickam refers to the article
of P. Batiffol, Les prsents de saint Cyrille la cour de Constantinople, tudes de liturgie et
d archologie chrtienne (Paris, 1919), pp. 154179.
156
chapter six
Gregory of Nazianzus, who related as fact a rumour that George of Cappadocia, later the Arian bishop of Alexandria, had as a contractor embezzled
public funds for the pork dole and soldiers rations.51 In a letter to the couple John and Hilaria, Pelagius comments that laws prevent a pontiff from
bequeathing the goods acquired during his term as pope.52 Following the
principle that laws were passed to deal with existing problems, we can surmise that this had already become an issue for bishops of Rome in particular.
Sabine Huebner, in her useful study of the recruitment of clergy in fifth
and sixth centuries, notes that charging of payments in return for clerical office became commonplace and eventually was sanctioned.53 Justinian
legitimized a consecration payment payable to bishops and the assisting
clergy. He also sanctioned handing over all or part of a clerical candidates
property.54 Huebner concludes, The clergy, therefore, should be regarded as
an institution that was tightly interwoven with the secular social structure
of later Roman society.55
Other social abuses such as incest, domestic violence and robbery, inter
alia, are dealt with incidentally in letters pertaining to other subjects. In
two letters (Epp. 7.2 and 8.3) Cyril of Alexandria attributes the violence and
robbery prevalent in Egyptian communities as the cause of the destruction
of crops by fire and hail and resulting famine.56 In Letter 34 to Eusebius,
a Roman official in Hippo, Augustine complains about a young man who,
after being chastised by the catholic bishop for beating and threatening his
mother, has gone over to the Donatists and has been rebaptized. Augustine
asks for mediation with the Donatist bishop who baptized him.57 One suspects that his misdemeanours are less serious for Augustine than the fact
that he has defected to the rival sect. Theodoret remonstrates with three
magistrates in the town of Zeugma because they have sanctioned marriages
between their daughters and their nephews, and between uncles and their
51
Or. 21.16; ed. J. Mossay, Gregoire de Nazianze. Discours 2023, SC 270 (Paris, 1980), pp. 142
144.
52 Pelagius I, Ep. 26 to Hilaria and John (Jaff 985); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 81 (February 559).
Pelagius expresses his desire to increase the churchs goods not materially but by sincerity of
heart (nostri tamen studii est, ecclesiasticas utilitates non tam facultatibus quam sinceritate
mentis augere).
53 Huebner, Currencies of Power, p. 175, n. 46.
54 Ibid., p. 176.
55 Ibid., p. 179.
56 See our Case-study on Cyril in Chapter 4.
57 Cf. Ep. 34 (NBA 21/1, pp. 234240) (395/396); cf. Ep. 35 (NBA 21/1, pp. 242248). See
Divjak, Epistulae, col. 952.
social abuses
157
nieces. Such incestuous marriages, he proclaims, are fitting for Persians but
not for Roman Christians.58 Importantly, it is not appropriate for magistrates
who call themselves Christian and are from episcopal families to sanction
such unions against divine law. Several more cases of social abuse are discussed in relation to Synesius of Cyrene and Gelasius of Rome in the casestudies at the end of this chapter.
Conclusion
One of the most important avenues of assistance for late-antique bishops when they had to manage social abuses either with regard to civil
or church office-holders was their epistolary networks. These late-antique
bishops axes, horizons, and culture demonstrate the validity of the arguments adduced by several scholars recently,59 namely that, while bishops
were often impotent in the face of ecclesiastical or civil crisis, and were not
bothered about many infringements of what today we consider basic human
rights,60 we do find them trying to intervene in cases of human trafficking, indentured labour of free-born children, usury, extortionate taxation
and above all in cases of theft and fraudulent management of church property. The question remains, however, were these actions undertaken by the
bishop as curialis (like Synesius) or as bishop per se? Theodoret also seems
to have undertaken his oversight of Cyrrhus much as a provincial governor
would have done. The next best example of such intervention is Gelasius, at
the end of the fifth century. While Gelasius decretals, discussed in the Casestudy below, provide useful insights into the many ecclesiastical abuses of
his time, they do not do justice to the fact that in general he sought to correct abuse by recourse to both ecclesiastical and civil law. The legal avenues
that were open to bishops to pursue such infringements are examined in the
next chapter on the breakdown of the structures of dependence.
58
Theodoret, Ep. VIII; ed. Azma, vol. 1, p. 80.

See Lepelley, Facing Wealth and Poverty, pp. 1617; K. Uhalde, Expectations of Justice
in the Age of Augustine (Philadelphia, 2007), pp. 3843; Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty.
60 See, for example, S.R. Holman, The Entitled Poor. Human Rights Language in the
Cappadocians, Doctores Ecclesiae, in Pro Ecclesia 9/4 (2000), pp. 476488.
59
158
chapter six
Case-Studies of Social Abuse Management
Case-Study 1. Synesius of Cyrene (411413)
In his short bishopric of about eighteen months (February 411mid-413),61

Synesius was faced with various crises, both private and public: the death
of his last remaining child,62 barbarian incursions which forced him to join
the citizens of his town on the ramparts several times a month,63 and a
crisis of conscience regarding his anxieties about being bishop.64 He is one
of few bishops known to have addressed a letter of a personal nature to
a woman, albeit a woman of some reputation, the pagan philosopher and
mathematician Hypatia, his former teacher in Alexandria.65
Synesius concern to safeguard the law is evident from early on in his
pontificate, with his letter to Troilus, sophist, philosopher and courtier of the
praetorian prefect Anthemius in Constantinople, on the pitiable situation of
Pentapolis, which was suffering from famine, barbarian incursions and the
corruption of local governors.66 Synesius beseeches Anthemius to uphold
the law in Libya and to send more law-abiding magistrates than those to
whose corrupt rule the citizens of Cyrenaica have been subject:
Now, we ask nothing new, we only beg Anthemius to enforce the laws of
which he is the guardian, and which are worthy of veneration owing to their
antiquity, for in this consists the very sacredness of law; or, if it seem best to
any one, let him enforce the newer edicts which register what one might call
a still living kingdom.67
61 Synesius episcopate has been variously calculated; we accept the chronology established by D. Roques, tudes sur la Correspondance, pp. 1164. According to Roques findings, Synesius was elected bishop of Ptolemas probably in the first half of February 411; he
was consecrated bishop by Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria only on 1 January 412, and
died mid-413. We are therefore considering an extremely short episcopate, which nonetheless, following this chronology, produced a total of 49 surviving letters out of 156. Elements
of this case-study have been presented in Allen, Brushes with the Imperium, in eds. Nathan,
Garland, Basileia: Essays, pp. 4553.
62 Ep. 89; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 211, 67.
63 Ep. 89; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 211, 4. Cf. Epp. 69, 73 and 94.
64 Epp. 11, 13, 41, 96 and 105.
65 Ep. 16; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, pp. 2627 (beginning of 413) on his personal misfortunes. On other letters to women, see Chapter 2 above, The question of audience: public or
private?
66 Ep. 73; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 194197 (July/Aug. 411). On Troilus see PLRE 2,
p. 1128, s.v. Troilus 1.
67 Ep. 73; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 196, 78197, 3. Trans. A. Fitzgerald, Letters of
Synesius of Cyrene (London, 1926), p. 165.
social abuses
159
Again, in a letter at the beginning of 412, Synesius reports to Theophilus

of Alexandria how he travelled through the dangers of barbarian territory to
two villages on the very frontier of arid Libya to call a meeting, at which he
accused the inhabitants of bribery and conspiracy.
Amongst the most prominent citizens some protested with exclamations of
wrath, while others, mounting upon any available pedestal the better to be
heard, addressed themselves at length to the gathering. I at once accused
these of bribery and conspiracy, and ordered the ushers to hustle and to expel
them from the meeting 68
Synesius complaints of corruption took focus in his dispute with the civil
governor of Pentapolis, an affair which consumed him in about one-eighth
of the total number of his surviving letters.69 The dispute, which lasted
just two months from February to March 412, is a remarkable example of
both public and private crisis management of a series of social abuses,
in that Andronicus was a cruel and rapacious official against whom, until
the dnouement of the crisis, Synesius as bishop appeared ineffectual and
depressed. The governor, a parvenu as the well-born bishop likes to point
out,70 was known for his panoply of sophisticated instruments of torture and
his merciless extortion of gold from members of the curial class. Andronicus
is depicted by Synesius as the latest in a list of disasters to have befallen
Pentapolis, from the earthquake of 365 over 40 years earlier, to the recent
plagues of grasshoppers, famine and fires of the year 411, and the raids of the
Berber Ausurians in the same year.71
68
Ep. 66; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 173186 (end Jan. 412). Trans. Fitzgerald, pp. 147
149.
69 The letters which pertain to the dispute are Epp. 39, 41, 42, 72, 73, 79, 80, 90. This
episode has been studied, notably by C. Lacombrade, Synsios hellne et chrtien (Paris, 1951),
pp. 237248; Lizzi, Il potere, pp. 85111; Roques, Synsios de Cyrne et la Cyrnaque, pp. 366
370; Roques, tudes, pp. 137159 (chronology); A. Garzya, Sinesio e Andronico, in Hestiasis.
Studi di tarda antichit offerta a Salvatore Costanza (Messina, 1998), pp. 93103; L. Cracco
Ruggini, Vir sanctus: il vescovo e il suo pubblico ufficio sacro nella citt, in eds. Rebillard,
Sotinel, L vque dans la cit, pp. 315; I. Tanaseanu-Dbler, Konversion zur Philosophie in
der Sptantike: Kaiser Julian und Synesios von Kyrene, Potsdamer Altertumwissenschaftliche
Beitrge 23 (Stuttgart, 2008), pp. 280281.
70 See eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 128; cf. Ep. 41; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 49, 237
258, on Synesius rather pompous comparison of Andronicus meagre pedigree, that of a
homo novus, with his own curial status. On Synesius penchant for self-display in this episode
see I. Tanaseanu, Between Philosophy and the Church: Synesius of Cyrenes Self-Display in
his Writings, Communication presented at the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 2006 (VI.3 Theology, Texts, Orthodoxy), www.wra1th.plus.com/byzcong/comms/
Tanaseanu_paper.pdf, accessed 17 June 2012.
71 Ep. 42; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 70, 9. On the chronology see Roques, tudes,
160
chapter six
One of Andronicus victims was a fellow curialis who was being starved
to death in prison. Synesius, who was a relatively young man and presumably athletic because of his well-known passion for hunting, thought once
of storming the ramparts of the prison, but decided against it.72 He did visit a
well-born citizen who was being tortured while incarcerated, which infuriated Andronicus and led him to repeated blasphemies against Christ.73 The
inhabitants looked to Synesius for help, not so much, it seems, because of
his episcopal office as because of his standing as curialis in his native region
and his previous successes in the civil realm as ambassador to Constantinople.74 However, the bishop felt himself powerless and, overcome also by the
recent death of his oldest son and last remaining child, remained impervious to the consolations of philosophy and of prayer.75 As he wrote to the
bishops in his first complaint against the atrocities Andronicus was committing in Cyrene: when I am overwhelmed by these things, I am forgetful
of myself, and only injure the success of the business I am engaged in. For it
is impossible to do anything well if one hates it.76
It will by now be obvious to the reader that our evidence of the dispute
between official and bishop is one-sided in that we rely totally on Synesius account, the main aim of which is to demonize his opponent.77 What is
significant in the crisis precipitated by the conduct of Andronicus is that neither bishop nor citizens appealed to the law. Nor apparently did the bishop
of Ptolemas consult his patron and senior colleague in Africa, Theophilus,
patriarch of Alexandria. Instead Synesius pronounced an edict of excom-
p. 145. Ep. 69 to Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 190 (mid412), laments the effects of the barbarian incursions.
72 Ep. 41; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 48, 230249, 1. See Tanaseanu, Between Philosophy
and the Church, n. 14, on the duty of bishops to visit the incarcerated.
74 Ep. 41; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 46, 166178. Pace Lizzi, Il potere, p. 85, who ignores
Synesius civic standing in Pentapolis and sees him in this episode as the bishop-protector.
Her comparison of Synesius intervention with the pro-active efforts of Basil of Caesarea to
deal with the severe famine in Cappadocia in 368 (p. 83) also ignores the standing that the
wealthy, well-born Basil enjoyed, quite apart from his role as bishop.
76 Ep. 41; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 53, 342345. Trans. Fitzgerald, p. 139. Cf. ibid., eds.
Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 51, 297300. Trans Fitzgerald, p. 137:
,
. I do not condemn bishops who are occupied with practical matters, for knowing of
myself that I am hardly equal to the one of two things, I admire all the more those who are
competent in both fields.
77 See further Lizzi, Il potere, p. 105.
social abuses
161
munication on the governor which was sent to all bishops in the region and
was meant to extend to all churches in the Christian world (Ep. 41). Synesius had, however, just been consecrated bishop, and other longer-serving
bishops objected to his excommunication of Andronicus, claiming that the
governor needed to be given the chance to repent of his crimes.78 Far from
repenting, Andronicus subsequently confiscated and sold public property,
and committed murder.79 The sentence of excommunication was then ratified, banning Andronicus and his accomplice Thoas from churches and
communion everywhere, and stating that Christians would refuse to shake
Andronicus hand or sit at table with him.80 While sentences of excommunication were not new in this period,81 the fate imposed on Andronicus was
harsh because the excommunicate should have had the possibility of doing
penance and/or seeking asylum, although the first legislation recognizing
the right of ecclesiastical asylum was not passed until 21 November 419 in
the West and 23 March 431 in the East.82
Synesius also effectively denied Andronicus the right of asylum, and
there was consequently no option for the official but to leave town and
his job. At the end of March 412 Synesius wrote to his friend Anastasius
in Constantinople asking him to secure justice at the imperial court for
the victims of Andronicus.83 However, a second redaction of Letter 42, in
which Andronicus excommunication is promulgated, demonstrates that
Synesius had a change of heart about the governors fate and sought to have
the sentence mitigated.84 To this effect he wrote to Theophilus,85 whom,
as we noted before, he had not bothered to consult in the first instance.
Nonetheless, in a stroke of administrative genius, albeit one that could
not be considered civilly legal, the bishop of Ptolemas had succeeded in
78
Ep. 72; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 192, 1828.

Ep. 72; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 193, 3032.
81 The statement of Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, p. 160, that Synesius had a new
arsenal of ecclesiastical instruments of reprimand and punishment, including excommunication, should be understood in the sense that they were new to pagans, being introduced
by Christianity.
82 See further Roques, tudes, p. 369.
83 Ep. 79; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 201206 (end March 412). Lizzi, Il potere, p. 103,
notes on the basis of Ep. 48 to Anastasius that Synesius representations to Constantinople
received a cold reception.
84 On the redaction see Lizzi, Il potere, p. 110; Garzya, Sinesio e Andronico; Garzya,
Roques, vol. 1, p. 143 n. 3.
85 Ep. 90.
79
162
chapter six
ridding himself and his people of a crisis of considerable proportions. We

can compare the import of Letter 156, where Synesius again intervenes in
his role as curialis-bishop in securing justice: My job is to serve all those I
can.86 This makes him, as the editors note, a kind of pater populi.87 Did he
see this as a religious role, or a political one?
As we know, at the time of the Andronicus affair Synesius was a new
bishop, and one who admitted problems with central aspects of Christian
doctrine. It is consequently no exaggeration to say that in the Andronicus
affair he was acting more as a curialis than a bishop: he was in good standing
with the imperium in Constantinople and with the local people, and as a very
new bishop appears to have been overruled by more senior colleagues with
regard to the severity of his sentence on Andronicus. Roques comment that
Synesius can be ranked among the authentic protectors of Gods people only
with caution is therefore apposite.88 In any case, Synesius representations
to his influential friends in the imperial court at Constantinople concerning
the Andronicus affair are more explicit than those he made to his diocesan
bishops.89 As an example we adduce his letter to his former friend, Anastasius, who had been on the side of Andronicus, and with whom Synesius
tried to build bridges after the dispute.90 All of this tends to support Lizzis
contention that in this event Synesius political motives are more apparent
than his religious ones.91
A final letter supports this conclusion. In Letter 90 to Theophilus of
Alexandria, Synesius appeals for mercy for Andronicus, who, a former perpetrator of injustice, is now treated unjustly, in his view.92 There he aligns
mercy () with justice ( ), with Theophilus invoked as the safeguarder of justice for the church.93 If your sacred person judges that this
man is worthy of any interest, I shall welcome this as a signal proof that God
has not yet entirely abandoned him, Synesius writes.94 So far so Christian,
86 Ep. 156 to the lawyer Dometian; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 306307, at p. 307, 45.
Our translation.
87 Eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 307 n. 4.
88 Roques, tudes, p. 371.
89 Lizzi, Il potere, p. 87.
90 Ep. 48; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 2, p. 67 (mid-412). On Anastasius, an influential figure
in the imperial court, see PLRE 2, pp. 7788, s.v. Anastasius 2.
91 Lizzi, Il potere, p. 107.
92 Ep. 90; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, pp. 211212 (mid-412).
94 Ep. 90; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 212, 14. Trans. Fitzgerald, pp. 177178.
social abuses
163
but a worrying note is struck by Synesius admission that, on Andronicus

account, we have incurred the displeasure of those now in power,95 leaving
the reader to wonder whether the bishop was more concerned with the
meting out of punishment in a way that was not disproportionate to the
governors sins, or with the loss of his former friends in Constantinople.
Case-Study 2. Gelasius of Rome (492496)96
Apart from his dealings with Constantinople and the East, most of Gelasius
letters refer to situations in Italy, rather than in Gaul or other areas of
the West,97 and among these the bulk of the surviving letters is addressed
to bishops and others in the area around Rome and to its south. These
pieces provide us with a window onto many social and clerical abuses in
Italy at the time, for example, murder and violence, unlawful ordination,
embezzlement, problems with wills and heirs, property disputes, disregard
for the right to asylum, and use of magical practices. In addition to these
witnesses to abuses in factual situations, we have Letter 14, a collection of
decretals outlining theoretically right conduct in church administration,
that provides us with a check-list of the kinds of ecclesiastical abuse that
Gelasius was trying to prevent.
Three letters apprise us of the murder of bishops. Letter 3698 relates the
death of a bishop in an unknown see after a fall and ensuing riot, for which
the archdeacon Asellus is blamed. Not only did he not intervene to save the
bishop but afterwards, as his heir, claimed the property of the deceased and
engineered his election to the episcopate without consulting Rome (or more
particularly Gelasius). The pope claims that an incision was found in the
episcopal book, perhaps meaning that Asellus had the name of the dead
bishop excised from the records. In any case, Gelasius relates what should
have happened: on the death of a bishop his passing has to be reported to
Rome, a visitator appointed, and a successor elected. For his violation of the
rules Asellus is to be removed from his rank of archdeacon, and if he is found
guilty by church law he is to be made to reform his ways. There were more
extreme cases of murder and violence in Squillace, a town in Calabria, as
95
Ep. 90; eds. Garzya, Roques, vol. 3, p. 211, 67. Trans. Fitzgerald, p. 177.
For reviews of recent work on Gelasius see F.W. Bautz, Biographisch-Bibliographisches
Kirchenlexikon 2, s.v. Gelasius I (Hamm, 1990), pp. 197199; R. Bratoz, EDP, 1, s.v. Gelasio I,
pp. 458462. All translations of Gelasius letters are our own.
97 See Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, p. 317.
98 Text in Thiel, pp. 449450. Gelasius letters are listed chronologically with summaries
in Jaff, pp. 8395.
96
164
chapter six
Letter 3799 informs us: there not one but two bishops had been murdered,
a situation to which Gelasius reacts irately, pointing out that even in the
continual wars against barbarians bishops had never been killed by the
sword. Leaving open the question whether the violence had been instigated
by the people of Squillace or incited by outsiders, the pope instructs two
bishops, presumably from neighbouring dioceses, that he is stripping the
guilty church of its right to have its own bishop, and requests them to send a
visitator to restore the divine ministries there. Letter 38,100 concerning the
priest Celestine, who has been found guilty of being accessory to the murder
of his bishop and relative, may refer to the violence reported in Letter 36 and
Letter 37.101 Celestine was forbidden communion for one year on the proviso
that he performed appropriate penance, but his period of penance is now
finished or nearly so and he can return to communion.
Violence of a lesser order is addressed by Gelasius in another letter.102
Here the pope instructs two bishops to protect from his adversaries a certain
Mark, priest of a monastery on a (papal?) estate, who has made serious
allegations against two of his fellow-priests, Romulus and Ticianus, to the
effect that they threw him out of the church on Easter Day. Together with
the lessee of the estate, Moderatus, the two miscreants then broke into the
sanctuary of the church, and allowed Moderatus, a layman, to celebrate the
mysteries while they pillaged the monastery. Gelasius asks the addressees
of his letter to brief the bishop in charge of the monastery about what has
gone on so that he can take appropriate action and save the good name of
his establishment.
Unlawful and irregular ordinations much exercised Gelasius. While the
ordination of a certain Stephen to the diaconate in a diocese other than his
own elicited a reprimand from the pope to his bishop,103 this was a breach of
canon law rather than an abuse. The abuse lay in the bishops ordination
of unsuitable persons to various clerical ranks, whether slaves, originarii
(registered farm workers), or other obnoxii (obligated persons, bondsmen),
without their owners permission.104 Hardly any bishop, remarks Gelasius,
99
Ed. Thiel, pp. 450452 (Jaff 725).

Ed. Thiel, p. 452 (Jaff 708, whose anterior dating of the letter excludes Celestine from
being involved in the Squillace murders).
101 Suggested by Thiel, p. 452 n. 1.
102 Text in Lwenfeld, p. 2.
103 Ep. 39 (Jaff 714); ed. Ewald, p. 519.
104 Ep. 20 (Jaff 651); ed. Thiel, p. 386: obnoxias coelestis militiae cingulo non praecingi.
Other infringements concerned ordained clerics who enlisted in the army, a desperate but
100
social abuses
165
can be regarded as beyond this [latter] accusation.105 Next in the same

letter the pope addresses a complaint brought before him by a vir illustris
that some of the men obligated to him remain in the clerical state (the
presbyterate), while others have recently been ordained deacons. Gelasius
fulminates to Bishops Martyrius and Justus,106 to whom he is writing:
You should not have accepted persons like this, not only after the recent
rule, which it is agreed was carried out by the assembly of so many pontiffs
with universal assent to its most beneficial provisions. And if, for example,
they had previously been accepted into the cult of the divine army through
ignorance, you should have got rid of them straightaway, and when you had
stripped them of their religious privilege, forced them back into their owners
possession with a fair warning.107
The pope demands that a slave or obnoxius unlawfully ordained to the

priesthood should remain in his rank, but must surrender his peculium or
property given by the owner; a deacon may continue in his role, or if he does
not have a role should give himself up. The social sensibilities of the time are
displayed by Gelasius statement: To the extent that this order is observed,
neither the rights of the owners nor their privileges should be disturbed on
any account.108 To do so would have been, in his view, a social abuse.
Gelasius makes a similar decision about two slaves of Placidia, a femina
illustris, who were ordained to clerical office in her absence.109 The first of
these two brothers, Antiochus, was ordained priest by Bishop Sabinus of
Marcellianum or Consilinum in Lucania and because of this rank cannot
be restored to his owner, although as an expedient Placidia may remove
him to a church of his own but only for the celebration of the mysteries; the
second brother, Leontius, being ordained apparently to a lower rank, is to be
restored outright to his owner. Once again Gelasius stresses that he receives
frequent and consistent complaints about such ecclesiastical abuse. In
sometimes necessary measure in times of war, which ran counter to ecclesiastical law. Decision 3 of Concilium Thelense, 24 Feb. 418, reads: Item si quis post remissionem peccatorum
cingulum militiae saecularis habuerit, ad clerum admitti non debet. (ed. Munier, CCSL 149,
p. 61, 6364).
105 Ep. 20; ed. Thiel, p. 387: ex hac culpa nullus pene episcoporum videatur extorris.
106 Two bishops so named were present at the first synod of Rome under Pope Symmachus
in 499. According to Thiel, p. 386 n. 1, the former was bishop of Acheruntia (Apulia), the other
perhaps of Tarracina (Campania).
107 Ed. Thiel, p. 387.
108 Ep. 20; ed. Thiel, p. 388: quatenus hoc ordine custodito nec dominorum jura nec
privilegia ulla ratione turbentur.
109 Ep. 21 (Jaff 653); ed. Thiel, p. 388.
166
chapter six
the case of two ordinarii, property of the illustris et magnificae Maxima,

who had been ordained deacons, he sternly orders that the aberration in
stepping out of line to this degree must be investigated more keenly than
usual, and, if the accusation is shown to be true, the two men are to be
removed immediately from their ecclesiastical rank. In all these cases to do
with ordination to the clergy, as Taylor has pointed out, Gelasius was careful
to observe civil law, such as a Novel of Valentinian III forbidding clerical rank
to those under obligation.110
Embezzlement by the clergy was taken seriously and carefully followed
up by Gelasius. In Letter 7111 he orders Bishop Geruntius of Valva, near
Salerno,112 to investigate the allegation that the bishop of Potentia in Apulia
removed a sacred paten and turned it to his own use. Had it not been for
the length of the journey and for bad weather, the pope would have gone
to Potentia himself (a distance of c. 250km), so seriously did he regard this
charge, which he says must be investigated by every means of enquiry.
In his place the pope sends the defensor ecclesiae Romanae and places
Geruntius cleric under his protection so that he does not suffer at the hands
of the impeached bishop. In another case the archdeacon John complained
that the local bishop of Falerio in Picenum Suburbicarium was embezzling
for his own use that part of the income of the church ear-marked for church
fabric and liturgy, as well as funds from elsewhere designated for upkeep
of the clergy.113 When John and many others objected to this abuse of funds
they were dismissed from their offices. Gelasius asks for a careful report to be
brought to him (nostris auribus) so that he can decide the case. A fragment
from another of the popes letters outlines the case of the deacon Olympius,
who was appointed guardian of two children whose parents had died. He
proceeded to embezzle what little inheritance the children had, inciting
Gelasius to denounce his conduct as against religion and abominable
and going beyond robbery.114 Similar indignation concerning the possible
abuse of vulnerable minors can be read in another fragment from a letter
addressed to a certain Anastasius, a cleric of indeterminate rank, to whom
the pope points out that it is the duty of the pontiff to intervene to protect
the orphans Maximus and Januarius, because this has been ordered by God.
110 Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, p. 324. The Novel in question is 35.3; CTh, vol. 3,
pp. 143144.
111 Ed. Lwenfeld, p. 4 (Jaff 648).
112 For the location see Ewald, p. 513 n. 1.
113 Frag. 22 (Jaff 687); ed. Thiel, p. 496. Cf. Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, pp. 323324.
114 Frag. 33 (Jaff 734); ed. Thiel, p. 501. Cf. Ewald, Frag. 57, p. 524.
social abuses
167
Anastasius is to come to the childrens aid to keep them safe from possible
abuse by their enemies. Taylor suggests that Anastasius was one of the
unofficial orphanotrophoi mentioned in legal codes as legal guardians who
were under no obligation to render accounts,115 a situation that was open to
abuse, as the civil laws dealing with them testify.116
In addition to denouncing unlawful ordinations and embezzlement by
clergy, Gelasius regarded problems with wills and heirs as part of his portfolio. In Letters 23 and 24117 it is a case of two clerics, Silvester and Faustinian,
who have requested that their status as freemen be examined by Bishops
Crispinus and Sabinus according to ecclesiastical and civil law. In the first
letter the appellants claim that, whereas they were manumitted by their
owner and thus enabled to join the clergy at an early age, on his death
his heirs wanted to overturn the manumission and reclaim their property,
whereby Silvester and Faustinian, as slaves once more, would no longer be
able to function as clerics. In addition to their treatment by the heirs, the
pair were also harassed by the local archdeacon, who wanted to take the
law into his own hands. Gelasius appeals to both ecclesiastical and civil law,
warning that the laws of the church which the princes [emperors] of old
have supported by their continual ordinances not be denied to clerics who
have been attacked. So seriously did Gelasius take the situation of the manumitted clerics that he wrote the second letter on their behalf to the Gothic
count (zeja),118 asking him to pursue the case and flattering him into taking action. Here Gelasius maintains that the pair were summoned against
the laws of the state by the archdeacon mentioned in the previous letter:
again Gelasius sides with the civil laws and urges their enactment, advising
the count that the appellants should be defended by the protection of Your
Sublimity, so that neither any theft nor violent force contrary to the [civil]
laws be inflicted on them. Gelasius minute interest in curbing abuses relating to wills is further exemplified by two fragmentary texts: part of a letter
addressed to Bishop Victor in the region of Beneventum advises him that
the heirs wish to respect and carry out the intent of the will,119 and another
115
Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, p. 327.

On the laws of Emperors Leo and Justinian with regard to clerical tutores, orphanotrophoi see CTh 3.17.1, 3.30.12; cf. Thiel, p. 501 n. 2.
117 Ed. Thiel, pp. 389390 and 390391, respectively (Jaff 727, 728).
118 Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, p. 328, suggests that zaja or zeia was the Gothic
equivalent of comes. The zaja is mentioned also in Ep. 14 (Jaff 650); ed. Ewald, pp. 513514,
in the context of correcting another kind of abuse.
119 Frag. 20 (Jaff 656); ed. Ewald, p. 516. On the location of Victors see cf. Ewald, p. 512 n. 3.
116
168
chapter six
text of barely two lines warns that it is in the best interests of the church to
safeguard the intention of the testator.120
Several texts, albeit fragmentary, attest to the practice of fleeing abusive
situations and claiming sanctuary in a church or holy place,121 resorted to
by a number of different classes in Gelasius time: a runaway slave,122 a man
seemingly an originarius, a Christian slave of a Jew,123 and a curialis.124 It is
the last case that will concern us here, being one of the violation of the
right of asylum. The curialis had sought refuge in the sanctuary of a church
in Beneventum when, during the absence of the priest, two of his fellowcitizens broke in and used violence to drag him out. Gelasius stresses that
no law of the state had ever permitted such behaviour,125 and warns that if the
two men are proven guilty of having violated the rules of asylum, they should
be excommunicated; he will put his full authority behind such a decision.
Furthermore, he will use his authority to keep them out of all the churches
in Beneventum as a fitting punishment and a deterrent to others.
Gelasius avid interest in micro-managing the papal estates126 transferred
easily into keeping an eye on the property and money of others, with the aim
of preventing abuse. It is clear that he was asked to intervene on behalf of
those who considered themselves defrauded, such as the monastic woman
Olibula:
The devout woman Olibula has advised us in a sad request that she has been
stripped of her possessions by her sisters, who, with no regard for her solitary
life, divided up their parents estate solely among themselves, supported by
the help of their husbands.127
The addressee of this letter, John of Spoleto, probably a bishop because he

is addressed as frater carissime, is told to protect Olibula from her sisters
and brothers-in-law and recover her rightful portion of the inheritance so
120
Frag. 29 (Jaff 731); ed. Thiel, p. 500.

On Christian asylum or sanctuary, a practice adopted from Classical times, transferred
from pagan temples to Christian churches, monasteries and shrines, see Chapter 3 above. On
the pre-Christian development of the practice see K.J. Rigsby, Asylia. Territorial Inviolability
in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley, 1996).
122 Frag. 41 (Jaff 711); ed. Thiel, pp. 505506.
123 Frag. 42 (Jaff 732); ed. Thiel, p. 506.
124 Frag. 40 (Jaff 737); ed. Thiel, pp. 504505.
125 He was probably thinking of CTh 9.45 and Sirm. Cons. 13 on the rights of those seeking
asylum in a church.
126 As exemplified in Ep. 17 (Jaff 637); ed. Thiel, pp. 381382, Ep. 31 (Jaff 666); Thiel,
pp. 447448, Ep. 32 (Jaff 667); ed. Thiel, p. 448.
127 Ep. 40 (Jaff 690); ed. Thiel, pp. 453454.
121
social abuses
169
that she may serve God with a calm mind.128 In another case, reported
in a fragment, the pope stipulates that a disputed property not be transferred until it is established legally to whom it really belongs, and that in
the meantime no rent should be paid from it.129 While it is sometimes difficult to reconstruct the context of fragmentary letters dealing with abuse
and its avoidance, we have one complete text130 that outlines a particularly
unsavoury episode involving a dispute between Faustus, the defensor ecclesiae Romanae, and a certain Eucharistus, who had set his sights on becoming bishop of Volterra by offering the defensor sixty-three solidi as a bond
(cautione). When Eucharistus attempt at the episcopate failed (supposedly
because of his history of heinous crimes) and Faustus refused to return the
bond, the matter was referred to Gelasius, not, as we might have expected,
because of the initial briberythe pope tells us that in fact the transaction was made in his presence and that of many curiales of Volterrabut
because Eucharistus wanted to reclaim his money, most of which Faustus
maintained he had spent on the upkeep of the curiales and on fodder for
their animals. Gelasius rules that Faustus not be obliged to return the balance and that Eucharistus claim is null and void. The notoriety of this dispute is demonstrated by the fact that Gelasius letter, which is really a report,
was read out formally in a synod.131
While abuse by clerics takes various forms in Gelasius letters, a tantalizingly short fragment concerning a certain Paul the deacon covers two kinds
of abuse that the pope sought to stamp out.132 It has come to Gelasius attention that Paul showed an honest woman (honesta femina) a good time
(tempus bonum), in the course of which he prevailed on her to commit
criminal acts and involved her in the magic art of cursing. The pope instructs
the addressee of the letter to ascertain whether in fact Paul had lusted after
the woman, and then to have him corroborate her story or submit to correction.
As we stated at the beginning of this case-study on abuse in the letters of
Gelasius I, in his surviving correspondence we have on the one hand concrete examples of various types of abuse, and on the other his 28 decretals,
transmitted in Letter 14,133 some of which are directed against prevailing or
128
129
130
131
132
133
Ep. 40 (Jaff 690); ed. Thiel, pp. 453454.

Ep. 22 (Jaff 720); ed. Lwenfeld, pp. 1112.
See ed. Lwenfeld, p. 11: Gelasius in synodo dixit.
(Jaff 636); ed. Thiel, pp. 360379.
170
chapter six
foreseen ecclesiastical abuses. The importance of these decretals is demonstrated by their inclusion in the Collectio Dionysiana, a compilation of 173
decretals or excerpts of 38 letters from various bishops of Rome from 385 to
498 put together by Gelasius contemporary, the Scythian monk Dionysius
Exiguus, by which they were transmitted to the Middle Ages.134
Leaving aside decretals of a canonical nature, such as those stipulating
the proper season for baptism, ordination and the consecration of virgins,
as well as those pertaining to the proper conduct of deacons and priests,
we find penalties for some of the factual abuses discussed above. Thus to
corroborate the popes ruling on the ordination of slaves and originarii in
the letters treated above, decretal 14 stipulates that no leader [bishop]
should protect either the slave or originarius of a church or monastery in
the name of religion if the owners are unwilling; whoever has tried to do
this will put at risk his position and his communion.135 Decretal 24, which
condemns both the giver and recipient of bribes in acquiring clerical office,
does not, however, seem to have influenced Gelasius verdict on Faustus
and Eucharistus, as reported in Letter 24 (Lwenfeld). The misdemeanours
of clerics like the deacon Paul are legislated for in decretal 19: it is not
permitted to conduct the sacred services by means of demonic or other
unrestrained phenomena.136 Other forms of abuse enshrined in Letter 14
concern exacting payment for baptism and confirmation (5), those who
fornicate with dedicated virgins (20), and women who presume to act as
ministers at the sacred altars, or to take on themselves any of those duties
allotted to men (26).137
134 See further B. Neil, The Decretals of Gelasius I: Making Canon Law in Late Antiquity,
in Lex et religio in et tardoantica, XL Incontro de Studiosi dellAntichit Cristiana (Roma, 1012
maggio 2012), Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 135 (Rome, forthcoming).
135 Ed. Thiel, p. 360, and pp. 370371.
136 Ed. Thiel, p. 361, and pp. 372373.
137 Ed. Thiel, p. 361, and pp. 376378.
chapter seven
BREAKDOWN IN THE STRUCTURES OF DEPENDENCE
Introduction
Letters to patrons, whether to men or women, were performative in the
sense that they actively maintained ties of obligation or other bonds. Thus
they offer a window onto the structures of dependence that remained in the
fifth and sixth centuries. The crisis in the structures of dependence from the
fourth to the sixth centuries has recently become the focus of great scholarly attention, partially inspired by Browns Poverty and Leadership. Brown
followed the theory of Patlagean that a shift from a civic model of social
relations to an economic model of social relations occurred in this period,
whereby the poor became visible to the rich as deserving of help.1 Our
own findings in Preaching Poverty revealed a major problem with applying
this theory to the fourth and early to mid-fifth centuries:2 namely, that the
social obligations between givers and receivers that underpinned the economic modeland Browns positing of the adoption of a biblical language
of claims of the poor on the richdid not and could not exist without the
sort of judicial system that framed Hebrew Scriptures (especially Psalms),
in which the poor were recognized as a body with rights to protection. The
Judaic judicial framework was weakened to the point of obliteration by the
strong resistance of the Graeco-Roman models of both personal and public
patronage. This was evident from the gap between rhetoric and praxis in the
philanthropic activities of bishops of the fourth and first half of the fifth centuries (especially John Chrysostom, Augustine and Leo I of Rome), as well
as from the evergetism practised by elite ascetics. While the Jewish model of
almsgiving rested upon a precept of equal human dignity between rich and
poor, the Christianization of the personal patronage model was ruthlessly
1 E. Patlagean, Pauvrt conomique et pauvrt sociale Byzance 4e7e sicles, Civilisations et Socits 48 (Paris, 1977).
2 Contra Brown, Poverty and Leadership; M.J. De Vinne, The Advocacy of Empty Bellies:
Episcopal Representation of the Poor in the Late Empire, D.Phil. diss., Stanford University,
1995; S. Wessel, Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome, VC Supplements
93 (Leiden, 2009).
172
chapter seven
hierarchical. Over the vertical relationship between the worldly patron and
client, it introduced a third agent, God, the ultimate patron, who constituted
the highest level of the social/spiritual hierarchy and to whom the debt of
the sinner could never be repaid. Late-antique Christian charity in fact had
four agents: the giver, the passive receiver, God, and the conduit/steward
(bishop or ascetic) who mediated wealth, goods and services. All took turns
to play the roles of creditor and debtor, giver and receiver.3
From the late fifth through the sixth centuries, these traditional social
structures were breaking down. The increasing artistocratization of the
episcopate over the course of our two centuries of interest has been noted
in the literature on Gallic and Roman bishops.4 The same trend can be
observed in the East, where former consuls or curiales were often fasttracked to the episcopate.
While there are several lengthy treatise-letters which are wholly or partly
concerned with the value of poverty, such as Salvian of Marseilles Ad ecclesiam sive adversus avaritiam, the anonymous Epistula de vera humilitate ad
Demetriadem and the Pelagian tract Ad Celantiam,5 these tend to focus on
spiritual or voluntary poverty adopted by elite ascetics. Bishops letters contain few pleas on behalf of the poor in general. Exceptions are Gelasius Is
appeal to Theodorics mother, Hereleuva, for assistance with poor relief, and
his expression of thanks to a noblewoman who had returned estates (praedia) that had been stolen from the Roman churchwhether by Ostrogoths
or by Romansfor the feeding of the poor.6 Several other examples from
Pelagius I will be treated below. Most bishops letters on this subject concern the formerly wealthy who have been impoverished by circumstances,
as we saw in the letters of recommendation written by Theodoret of Cyrrhus
on behalf of displaced persons.7 Wealth, nobility and connections seem to
have played an important part in the success of individual petitions for aid.
Supporting evidence for this bias in Rome and Ravenna comes from the
3 See B. Neil, Models of Gift Giving in the Preaching of Leo the Great, JECS 18/2 (2010),
pp. 225258.
4 See Richards, Popes and the Papacy, pp. 240242. On aristocratic status as a pre-requisite
for papal election by the time of Gregory I, see also J. Moorhead, On Becoming Pope in Late
Antiquity, Journal of Religious History 30.3 (2006), pp. 279293.
5 Salvian of Marseille, Ad ecclesiam sive adversus avaritiam (CPL 487), SC 176, pp. 138
344; Ad Celantiam (CPL 745); ed. I. Hilberg, CSEL 29, pp. 329356; trans. Rees, Pelagius. Life
and Letters, pp. 127144.
6 Frag. 36; ed. Thiel, p. 502; Frag. 35 to illustris Firmina; ibid., pp. 501502.
7 Case-study 4 in Chapter 3 above.
breakdown in the structures of dependence
173
Libri Pontificales of each capital.8 As shown by Rapp, the late-antique bishop

assumed a more important role in civic affairs in the two centuries after
Constantine the Great, which included acts of public evergetism.9 While the
evidence for this is most obvious in Rome from the second half of the fifth
century, when the imperial focus moved away from Rome towards Ravenna,
definitively with the arrival of the Ostrogoths, it is a trend that took place at
various increments all over the empire. While we would not want to posit
a total imperial power vacuum, even in Rome, the evidence for episcopal
involvement in the provision of buildings, churches, housing; ransoming of
prisoners; emergency food supplies; and diplomatic exchanges with potential invaders, grows significantly from the mid-fifth century.10
At the end of the fifth century, titular or neighbourhood churches (tituli) in Rome passed from private ownership into the hands of the bishop.11
This development put bishops of Rome in a stronger position to manage
their extensive properties and their revenues, as well as to defend the interests of the needy and especially the clergy, who were considered a special
category of the poor. At the same time Pope Gelasius started to insist that
wealthy landowners apply in writing for episcopal approval to establish private foundations and staff them with clergy.12 The extension of papal power
over monasteries and other charitable institutions is evidenced in Pelagius Is correspondence, from 556 to 561. In the sixth century socio-economic
conditions had worsened in Italy, as first the Gothic wars of 535 to 554, and
8 See B. Neil, Crisis and Wealth in Byzantine Italy: the Libri Pontificales of Rome and
Ravenna, Byzantion 82 (2012), pp. 279303.
9 Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity, esp. pp. 274289, where an overview of the legal
evidence is given.
10 M. Humphries, From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space, and Authority at Rome
From Constantine to Gregory the Great, in eds. Cooper, Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage, pp. 2158, highlights the occasional imperial presence in Rome throughout the sixth and
seventh centuries. See the discussion of the fifth-century Roman evidence in B. Neil, Imperial Benefactions to the Fifth-Century Roman Church, in eds G. Nathan, L. Garland, Basileia:
Essays on Imperium and Culture in honour of E.M. and M.J. Jeffreys, Byzantina Australiensia 17
(Brisbane, 2011), pp. 5566, with lit..
11 On the tituli, post-Constantinian foundations in Rome that numbered 29 by the end
of the fifth century, see Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 231232; J. Hillner, Families,
Patronage and the Titular Churches of Rome, c. 300c. 600, in eds. Cooper, Hillner, Religion,
Dynasty, and Patronage, pp. 225261.
12 The increased oversight of private estate churches by Roman bishops from the end
of the fifth century is noted by Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 166172; see also
K. Cooper, Poverty, Obligation, and Inheritance: Roman Heiresses and the Varieties of Senatorial Christianity in Fifth-Century Rome, in eds. Cooper, Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, pp. 165
189 at pp. 173174.
174
chapter seven
later the Lombard invasions from the 570s, left many dioceses unable to
provide for the basic needs of their clergy or other needy in their district.
Out of dire necessity Pelagius I was forced to take an interest in the poor
and to watch closely the management of his own estates and of private
foundations. It has been plausibly suggested that the tightening of episcopal
control over such appointments was a response to the breakdown of the old
system of senatorial management of rural estates, as a result of the Gothic
wars.13 Pelagius I instructed the defensor Opilio to establish a presbyter
or deacon as abbot of the monastery and hospital of St John at Catana,
and to forbid the monks all power of ordaining or deposing.14 Another
dispute concerned a woman who had built and dedicated an oratory and
established monks there, of whom one was a priest.15 Later Pelagius II (579
590) converted his own house into an almshouse for the aged poor.16
Failure of the Roman Legal System
In Christian antiquity the civil legal system was overloaded with litigation,
leaving most plaintiffs without the time or the resources to achieve justice
in the secular system. The system of allowing bishops to arbitrate cases
brought before them by two parties without coercion, which was introduced
by Constantine I in 318 as a means of reducing the backlog of cases that came
to arbitration, presented a valid alternative. By the fifth century, however,
the bishops court (audientia episcopalis) was itself overloaded. That the
audientia episcopalis demanded an enormous commitment of the bishops
time is evident in particular from Augustines letters.17 Although the process
of hearing cases according to civil law formed such a large part of a bishops
duties, we are still reasonably in the dark about the kinds of cases brought
before him.18 We know too that bishops were often powerless in the face of
13 L. Pietri, vergtisme chrtien et fondations prives dans lItalie de lantiquit tardive,

in eds. R. Lizzi Testa, J.-M. Carri, Humana Sapit: tudes dantiquit tradive offertes a Lellia
Cracco Ruggini (Turnhout, 2002), pp. 253263 at p. 262; Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority,
p. 122.
14 Ep. 42 to Opilio (Jaff 1001); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 116118 (mid-March 559). This is to be
done in the presence of the newly elected bishop of Catana, Elpidius.
15 Ep. 44 to John defensor (Jaff 1003; 960); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 121124 (mid-Marchc. 22
March 559).
16 LP 1, p. 309.
17 Ep. 9* (NBA 23A, pp. 7277); Ep. 11* (NBA 23A, pp. 88117); Ep. 20*.67 (NBA 23A, pp. 164
167); Ep. 24*.1 (NBA 23A, pp. 212213).
18 For secondary literature on the bishops court in the fourth to sixth centuries see
175
the injustices that came before them.19 So, was the judicial system reformed
from the latter half of the fifth century to reflect the interests of the poor,
and other victims of the various crises discussed in Chapters Three to Six?
In the next section and the two case-studies on Augustine and Pelagius I, we
consider the epistolary evidence for the workings of the bishops court and
its complex relationship with the civil legal system.
The Bishops Court
Augustines Letter 24* is one of the most important witnesses to a breakdown in North African society in Late Antiquity. It also demonstrates the
kinds of problems bishops faced in reconciling the tenets of Christianity
with the dictates of civil law. Here Augustine asks advice from the lawyer
Eustochius to help him in adjudicating cases in the audientia episcopalis.20
In particular it is a question of free parents leasing their children to the
in chronological order: W. Selb, Episcopalis audientia von der Zeit Konstantins bis Novelle XXXV Valentinians III, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte 84 (1967),
pp. 162217; C. Lepelley, Libert, colonat et esclavage d aprs la lettre 24*, in Les Lettres de
saint Augustin, pp. 329342, at pp. 340342; M.R. Cimma, LEpiscopalis audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Constantino a Giustiniano (Turin, 1989); J. Lamoreaux, Episcopal Courts
in Late Antiquity, JECS 3 (1995), pp. 143167; K. Raikas, Audientia Episcopalis: Problematik
zwischen Staat und Kirche bei Augustin, Augustinianum 37 (1997), pp. 476477; P. Garnsey,
C. Humfress, Evolution of the Late Antique World (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 7277; L. Dossey, Judicial Violence and the Ecclesiastical Courts in Late Antique North Africa, in ed. R.W. Mathisen,
Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2001), pp. 98114; J. Harries, Resolving
Disputes: The Frontiers of Law in Late Antiquity, in ed. Mathisen, Law, Society and Authority,
pp. 6882; N. Lenski, Evidence for the audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine,
in ed. Mathisen, Law, Society and Authority, pp. 8397; P.I. Kaufman, Patience and/or Politics:
Augustine and the Crisis at Calama, 408409, VC 57/1 (2003), pp. 2335 at p. 32; K. Uhalde,
Expectations of Justice in the Age of Augustine (Philadelphia, 2007), pp. 2943; J. Hellebrand,
ed., Augustinus als Richter, Cassiciacum 39/5, Res et Signa Augustinus-Studien 5 (Wrzburg,
2009); K. Cooper, Christianity, Private Power and the Law from Decius to Constantine: A
Minimalist View, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 329343; J. Harries, Superfluous Verbiage? Rhetoric
and Law in the Age of Constantine and Julian, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 345374; C. Humfress,
Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity: How (Not) to Make Sense of the Legal Evidence,
JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 375400, with a comprehensive bibliography at p. 376 n. 5.
19 See C. Lepelley, Facing Wealth and Poverty: Defining Augustines Social Doctrine,
The Saint Augustine Lecture 2006, Augustinian Studies 38 (2007), pp. 117 at p. 17; Uhalde,
Expectations of Justice, pp. 3843; Allen, Neil, and Mayer, Preaching Poverty, pp. 149, and 225
226.
20 NBA 23A, pp. 212215; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 323324. See M. Humbert, Enfants
louer ou vendre: Augustin et l autorit parentale, pp. 189204 in Les lettres de saint Augustin;
C. Lepelley, Libert, colonat et esclavage, pp. 329342, ibid.; Mayer, Legitimation, pp. 7074;
Raikas, Audientia episcopalis, pp. 98100.
176
chapter seven
labour force for up to twenty-five years, or sometimes even selling them

into slavery, a process which Eno describes as a proto-serfdom of the type
we usually associate with the Middle Ages.21 Referring to 1 Corinthians 6:6,
where Paul stipulates that cases between Christians be heard in the church
not in the courts, Augustine complains: we have to endure the sort of petitions on the part of litigants in which we have to learn the laws of this world,
especially concerning the temporal condition of persons.22 Raikas points to
the legal ambiguity here caused by the old jurisprudential tradition of the
Roman empire vis--vis the application of imperial constitutions, and posits
a changing model whereby the process of the audientia episcopalis, in which
the bishop exercised in a pastoral way the role of father over children, contributed to restrictions in private law.23
The corruption that was endemic throughout the empire and caused
abuses of the just was also alleged to be present in the audientia episcopalis.
As Noel Lenski aptly put it, When a bishop wished, he could enthusiastically abuse his legal powers.24 Augustine gives an example of the reactions
of the litigants when a bishop decides in favour of a rich person or a poor
onein both cases allegations of bribery are flung at the bishop.25 We will
return to Augustine in our first case-study below.
Theodoret, bishop of the wealthy Syrian city of Cyrrhus (423466), intercedes in several letters on behalf of poor peasants in his jurisdiction in a
way that seems truly exceptional for a bishop of the mid-fifth century. As
we saw in our case-study on Theodoret in relation to displaced persons,26
Theodorets strong civic sense married well with his conception of a bishops
responsibility for looking after the material needs of his flock. In a letter to
the magister militum Areobindus Theodoret intervenes on behalf of peasants whose crops have failed for two years, asking that they not be required
to pay taxes.27 In another letter he asks the archon Neon for the same consideration.28 In 446 to 447 the bishop wrote four letters on behalf of the poor.
21 R.B. Eno, Saint Augustine. Letters Volume VI (1*29*), FOTC 81 (Washington, DC, 1989),
p. 172.
22 Ep. 24*1; NBA 23A, p. 213; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, p. 323: nos necesse est perpeti tales
iurgantium quaestiones, in quibus nobis etiam sub terrena iura quaerenda sint, praecipue de
condicione hominum temporali.
23 Raikas, Audientia episcopalis, pp. 98100.
24 Lenski, Evidence for the audientia episcopalis, p. 97.
25 Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 25/2,13; NBA 25, pp. 348350.
26 Chapter 3, Case-study 5.
27 Ep. 18; ed. Azma, vol. 1, pp. 8990 (possibly before 434).
28 Ep. 37 to the archon Neon; ed. Azma, vol. 1, p. 102 (c. 434).
177
The first two concern peasants who are at the mercy of another bishop and
cannot pay their taxes.29 In these letters he complains to the prefect and the
empress that the peasants have been wronged by the bishop and many have
deserted the land. This was not an isolated incident. In Letter 45 to patricius
Anatolius he complains about another bishops oppression of the poor in the
district of Cyrrhus and Cilicia, asking him to intervene,30 and he intercedes
with Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, once more on behalf of the poor.31
Theodoret may have considered this as compatible with the philanthropic
duties of a curialis, along with the building of aqueducts and other public
buildings for the city of Cyrrhus. However, we must stress that this evidence,
which seems to support Browns argument in Poverty and Leadership, is
exceptional in every way. The more common impression is that bishops
were very little involved in the needs of the poor and oppressed in the
fourth century, and only marginally more so in the fifth and sixth centuries,
and then their interventions were overwhelmingly in favour of the formerly
wealthy. Even Augustines many letters provide us with only a handful of
instances where he intervened on behalf of the poor and oppressed.32
The role of mediation outside the legal system became increasingly
important as the secular system was seen to take too long, cost too much
and be too unpredictable in its results due to corrupt officers.33 Provincial
governors sometimes took the initiative and set up a free alternative to the
audientia episcopalis or the secular courts. The Syriac Chronicle of Ps. Joshua
the Stylite, an anonymous work composed in the city of Edessa between 494
and 506, relates one such instance in 497 ce:34
29 Ep. 42 to the prefect Constantine; ed. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 106113, and Ep. 43 to Pulcheria
augusta; ed. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 112115.
30 Ep. 45 to patricius; ed. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 118121.
31 Ep. 47 to Proclus, bishop of Constantinople; ed. Azma, vol. 2, pp. 122125.
32 C. Lepelley, Le patronat piscopale aux IVe et Ve sicles, in eds. Rebillard, Sotinel,
L vque dans la cit, pp. 1733, at pp. 3132; Allen, Neil, Mayer, Preaching Poverty, p. 149.
Augustines glancing references to helping the poor in his commentary on Psalms were also
heavily weighted towards spiritual, not actual, poverty: see P. Allen, B. Neil, The Poor in
Psalms: Augustines Discourse on Poverty in Enarrationes in Psalmos, in eds. C. Harrison,
A. Casiday, A. Andreopoulos, Meditations of the Heart. Essays in Honour of Andrew Louth,
Studia Theologiae Traditionis (Turnhout, 2011), pp. 181204.
33 On mediation see J. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999), p. 172:
Settling a dispute by mediation by a third party or by negotiation between the parties
themselves was, by definition, extra-legal This did not, in practice, mean that informal
agreements were less binding. Cf. Gelasius, ep. 1, ed. Thiel, pp. 287311, where Acacius is said
repeatedly to be in mediation.
34 Chronicle, 29; ed. Chabot, CSCO 91, pp. 255256; trans. Trombley, Watt, pp. 2627.
178
chapter seven
Alexander replaced [Anastasius as governor] at the end of this year. He
also put a wooden box in front of his praitorion and made a hole in its lid,
and wrote above it that anyone wishing to make something known, which he
could not (do) easily in public, should put it in writing and drop it inside (the
box) without fear. On this account he learnt many things, for many people
wrote (notes) and put them in it. Every Friday without fail he would sit in
the martyrion of Mar John the Baptist and Mar Addai the Apostle and settle
lawsuits free of charge. [The oppressed] stood up against their oppressors, the
swindled against their swindlers; they brought their cases before him, and he
gave judgement.
It is unclear whether this was an old north-Syrian custom of gratis mediation,35 or a reaction to the failure of the episcopal and civil court systems. Alexander judged uninvestigated cases that went back more than fifty
years,36 thus outdoing the thirty-year statute of limitations in Roman law,
repeated in a novella promulgated by Valentinian III and in Canon 17 of the
Council of Chalcedon.37
One reason that many were obliged seek justice from episcopal courts
was that they were excluded from secular courts by their clerical profession.38 Leo Is Letter 137 concerns charges of corruption against church stewards, or financial administrators (oeconomici).39 Such stewards had control
over the financial affairs of a diocese, under the bishops supervision. Leo
requested of Emperor Marcian that the financial accounts of church stewards should be audited by clergy, not by laypersons, that is, that they should
be tried in ecclesiastical courts.40 Clergy were meant to bring their case
before their own bishop.41 Gelasius made a similar plea to Theodoric in
regard to two renegade priests who had sought to have their case heard
by the royal court. An important limitation on the capacity for litigants to
succeed in an episcopal hearing was the criterion that both parties do so
without coercion, as stipulated in a novella of Valentinian III.42
35
A possibility suggested by Trombley, Watt, p. 27, n. 134.

Ibid.
37 CTh. 4.14, pp. 194196; Canon 17 of Chalcedon; Valentinian IIIs novella 27, trans. Pharr,
pp. 538539; cf. Nov. Val. 31 and 35.
38 Sirm. Cons. 6; trans. Pharr, p. 479.
39 ACO 2.4, pp. 8990, nr. 80. Trans. Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 136138.
40 Cf. Sirm. Cons. 3, trans. Pharr, p. 478: clerics shall not be called before a public court in
ecclesiastical cases.
41 Canon 9 of Chalcedon Against clerics going to a secular court; they are to bring their
case before their own bishop; ed., trans. Tanner, p. 91 and p. 91*, with pre-history on p. 91*
n. 1.
42 Nov. Val. 35; Pharr, p. 545: episcopal courts; bishops can judge cases between clerics or
where both parties are willing but not otherwise; since bishops do not have a court according
36
179
In Rome it was common practice for the bishop to delegate judicial duties
to other bishops to judge a law suit between clergy. For example, Gelasius
appoints three bishops as judges between the archdeacon Faustinus and
deacon Stephen, with the caustic remark: We think it pointless to call litigants to our see when the causes of souls and the sole purpose of the petitor
is words!43 This is not to say that Roman bishops were heavily involved in
face-to-face mediation. Taylors study of the letters of Gelasius concluded
that, the proceedings of Gelasius tribunal were for the most part conducted by documents.44 On at least three occasions Pope Gelasius protested
successfully to Theodoric against those who had gone to the royal courts
unlawfully while concealing their status as clerics.45 In a tantalizingly brief
fragment, he points out to Theodoric that, since the king has ordained that
the laws of Roman princes should govern human affairs, he should want
them to do so all the more in reverence to blessed Peter.46 Those who were in
a state of penance were also discouraged from litigating in secular courts.47
Evidence for the audientia episcopalis as practised by individual bishops
is sketchy at best. Two of our best examples come from Augustine of Hippo
and Pelagius of Rome, the subjects of case-studies at the end of this chapter.
No eastern bishops provide enough material to warrant a case-study.
Conclusion
The general crisis in the structures of dependence obscures the reality of
episcopal responses to poverty and social displacement in the period under
scrutiny. While it is true that more letters emerge in which the bishop seems
to take an interest in the poor, this interest is ad hoc, ad locum, and ad
to the laws, and they cannot have cognizance of cases except in religious matters, according
to the divine imperial constitutions of Arcadius and Honorius (CTh 16.11.1; 1.27.2; CJ 1.4.7).
43 Ep. 6 to Bishops Victor, Serenus and Melior; ed. Lwenfeld, pp. 34 (end of 494 or the
beg. 495).
44 Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, p. 321.
45 Frag. 11 (Jaff 723); ed. Thiel, p. 489; Frag. 13 (Jaff 743); ed. Thiel, p. 490, and Ep. 46 (Jaff
721); ed. Ewald, pp. 521522. Cf. Taylor, The Early Papacy at Work, p. 322 n. 40.
46 Frag. 12; ed. Thiel, pp. 489490: Certum est, magnificentiam vestram leges Romanorum principum, quas in negotiis hominum custodiendas esse praecepit, multo magis circa
reverentiam beati Petri apostoli pro suae felicitatis augmento velle servari.
47 Ep. 167 to Rusticus of Narbonne; PL 54, 11991209; trans. Neil, Leo the Great, p. 144.
Question 10 concerned those who have professed penance, and then start pursuing a case
in the law courts. Leo rules that it is better to seek a ruling from the church than from a
court of law.
180
chapter seven
hominem. Letters of personal recommendation begin to appear more frequently from bishops pens, but those who were recommended were almost
always relatively wealthy, at least until their circumstances were changed
by war and displacement. The audientia episcopalis, while it offered a better
chance of justice for the ordinary person without connections, and was the
only avenue open to clergy and penitents, was over-taxed and open to corruption, to judge from the examples of Pelagius, Gelasius and Theodoret.
In the uncertainty created by the breakdown in civic structures, bishops
took the opportunity to extend their control over private foundations, some
monasteries48 and, in Rome, titular churches. Imperial administrative structures held on to some extent, longer in some regions than others. Regrettably, no broad-sweeping ideological transformation of the kind posited by
Patlagean and Brown is evidenced in episcopal letters from 410 to 590ce.
In the concluding chapter, we consider how episcopal strategies for managing the crises treated in Chapters 3 to 7 differed across time and place,
and what common threads run through epistolary evidence on the subject,
giving us an overall picture of who and what failed to register in episcopal
correspondence of these two centuries of Late Antiquity, as it comes down
to us today.
Case-Studies of Breakdown of Structures of Dependence
Case-Study 1. Augustine of Hippo (395430)
Augustines letters, particularly those in the Divjak collection, are important
witnesses to the episcopal court in the first quarter of the fifth century, even
if the evidence they bring to bear on the process of litigation is at times
difficult to assess. As Mayer points out, Augustines concept of justice is
consistent throughout his works.49 It is therefore not surprising that both in
matters addressed by the audientia episcopalis and appeals by letter to him
48 Canon 4 of the Council of Chalcedon; ed. Tanner, p. 89, stipulates: Verum tamen
episcopum convenit civitatis conpetentem monasteriorum providentiam gerere. The due
care of the monasteries must be exercised by the bishop of the city. The Roman, Palestinian
and Egyptian evidence for this, which is not definitive on the question of property ownership
by monks or wealthy monastic founders, is evaluated by Cooper, Poverty, Obligation, and
Inheritance, pp. 173175. The eastern evidence presented by D. Caner, Wandering, Begging
Monks. Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA,
2002), is more conclusive, and will be discussed in the Conclusion.
49 C. Mayer, Legitimation des Rechts bei Augustinus, in ed. Hellebrand, Augustinus als
Richter, pp. 6083, at pp. 7582.
181
in his episcopal role we encounter a man who advocates tempering justice

with mercy, and forgiveness rather than punishment. To be noted also is the
fact that it is not always clear in which capacity Augustine is acting, but at
any rate his commitments in the episcopal court contributed significantly
to his workload, as he complains with some frequency.50 His biographer,
Possidius, says that Augustine heard cases diligently until it was time for the
meal, or else he fasted the whole day while the court was in session.51 Like
Ambrose, Augustine was inclined to take on clerical cases in his court, but
there are instances where he accepted others as well.52
Letters 152 and 153, comprising an exchange from 413 or 414 ce between
Macedonius, the vicar53 of Africa, and Augustine on the subject of the intercession of bishops on behalf of the guilty, is clearly a case where the audientia episcopalis is not involved.54 In a lost letter the bishop of Hippo had
apparently requested the vicar to intercede on behalf of a condemned person, which Macedonius did, but not without misgivings. He casts doubt on
Augustines statement that the responsibility of his priesthood (sc. episcopate) to intervene on behalf of the guilty pertains to the Christian religion,
given that penance can be allowed only once.55 In a lengthy reply Augustine
shows that interceding for the guilty is enjoined by Christ himself; further:56
there are distinct roles for the prosecutor, for the defense attorney, for the
intercessor, and for the judge . The judgment of God has filled them with
fear so that they keep in mind that they need Gods mercy on account of their
own sins and do not suppose that it counts as a failure in their office if they
act mercifully in any way toward those over whom they have the legitimate
power of life and death.
In another letter (Ep. 85) Augustine relates how he has to endure numerous complaints about the inappropriate lifestyle of Paul, one of his fellowbishopscomplaints apparently brought forward by Pauls congregation
formally but not in the context of a bishops court.57 Similarly, in Letter
50 See n. 17 above. Discussions in C. Munier, Audientia episcopalis, in ed. Mayer, Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 1, cols. 511515 at col. 514; Lenski, Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis,
p. 93.
51 Vita Augustini 19.3; ed. Bastiaensen, p. 180, 1823.
52 As in Ep. 24*, discussed below. Cf. Lenski, Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis, p. 84.
53 That is, the representative of the praetorian prefect.
54 See the treatment in P.I. Kaufman, Augustine, Macedonius, and the Courts, Augustinian Studies 34/1 (2003), pp. 6782 with lit.
55 Ep. 152.2; NBA 22, pp. 518520; trans. Teske, WSA 2/2, p. 388.
56 Ep. 153.8; NBA 22, p. 530; trans. Teske, WSA 2/2, p. 394.
57 NBA 21/2, pp. 730733; trans. Teske, WSA 2/1, pp. 341342.
182
chapter seven
251 complaints have been made to Augustine by the people of Germanicia

against the priest Secundinus, and the bishops orders a catholic layman
to investigate whether the objections are coming from heretics.58 In other
letters we find Augustine acting as a legal adviser outside his own court. In
Letter 7*,59 through a deacon he advises his fellow-bishop, Novatus of Sitifis,
about the case of a widow who was claiming a large sum of money that had
been paid to the church of Hippo, where Augustine recommends that the
matter be investigated and referred to the comes Africae, thus devolving the
responsibility onto secular authorities even though the church was involved.
In the case of a property dispute brought before Augustine by the Jew
Licinius, the bishop advises his fellow-bishop Victor, who allegedly bought
Licinius property from his mother and drove him out, to sort out the affair
and admonish the culprit, rather than escalate the matter by referring it to
an episcopal court.60 Letter 9* informs us that in the case of a curialis who
carried off a professed nun and for his sins was beaten illegally by clerics,
Augustine once more appeared as a legal adviser, rather than a judge, in a
criminal case.61 The blurring of distinction between civil and ecclesiastical
responsibility and, in certain cases, the impotence of both legal codes is
lamented by the bishop of Hippo: You know, after all, how this question
tends to wear us down, that is, how these sins are left unpunished without
harm to ecclesiastical discipline, or how they ought to be punished by
the Church when they cannot be punished by civil laws.62 Different again
is Letter 14*, written to a catholic layman, Dorotheus, to inform him that
Augustine has a complaint against one of his men but will not reveal the
58
NBA 23, pp. 868869; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, p. 187.

NBA 23A, pp. 6467; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 232240. On this letter see J. Andreau,
La lettre 7* sur les mtiers banciares, in Les lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 165176; Lenski,
Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis, pp. 8687; K.K. Raikas, Audientia episcopalis. Problematik zwischen Staat und Kirche bei Augustin, in ed. Hellebrand, Augustin als Richter,
pp. 84105, at pp. 8889.
60 Ep. 8*; NBA 23A, pp. 6871; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 257258. See Lenski, Evidence
for the Audientia episcopalis, p. 85; Mayer, Legitimation, pp. 6869; Raikas, Audientia
episcopalis, pp. 9091. In any case, appeal to the bishops court was naturally restricted to
Christians: see J.D. Harries, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999), p. 192.
61 NBA 23A, pp. 7277; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 259261. See Lenski, Evidence for the
Audientia episcopalis, p. 85; Mayer, Legitimation, p. 68; E.-M. Kuhn, Rechtsprechung durch
den Bischofsrichter. Augustin und die Umsetzung der gttlichen Gerechtigkeit in der Praxis,
in ed. Hellebrand, Augustinus als Richter, pp. 106155, at pp. 145151.
62 Ep. 9*.2; NBA 23A, p. 72; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 259260: Nosti enim quemadmodum
nos soleat quaestio ista conterere vel quomodo haec mala impunita salvo regimine Ecclesiae
relinquantur vel quomodo debeant ab Ecclesia vindicari, quandoquidem per leges publicas
nequeant.
59
183
identity of the man or the nature of his crime for fear that Dorotheus will
punish the miscreant excessively because the complaint has been brought
forward by a bishop.63 The following letter in the Divjak collection, written to
a group of clerics in Thagaste,64 specifies that Cresconius, the supervisor of
Dorotheus estate and a married man, had raped a nun, for which offence
Augustine had excommunicated him. The clergy are asked first to make
Dorotheus promise that he will not punish the offender more severely than
Augustine advocates (presumably a beating is meant)65 before they divulge
Cresconius name and crime to his master. Although Augustine relates all
the details of the case to the clergy of Thagaste and recommends that the
man should lose his job, there is no suggestion that the case has been or
should be tried in an episcopal court.
In Letter 10* (422/3ce) we encounter the serious legal and humanitarian
problem posed by Galatian slave-traders who captured over a hundred
North Africans and were intercepted by the clergy of Hippo before they
set sail with their booty.66 Augustines comment on this situation, that it
is up to the authorities or administrative services, which have charge of
how this law or any other passed on this matter can be implemented, to
see to it that Africa is no longer being emptied of its native inhabitants,67
indicates that in the absence of action on the part of the government he has
felt compelled to step in. In fact, he interrogated the newly enslaved Africans
and detained them until such time as their relatives could produce letters
from their bishops with bona fides of the captives free status68another
compelling example of the authority of the episcopal letter at this time,
then manumitted them, thereby going beyond the law and leaving himself
open to a lawsuit from the slave-traders.69 Once again, there is no appeal to
63
NBA 23A, pp. 140141; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, p. 288.

Ep. 15*; NBA 23A, pp. 142145; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 290291.
65 On beatings see Dossey, Judicial Violence.
66 NBA 23A, pp. 7887; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 262266. See J. Roug, Escroquerie et
brigandage, in Les lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 177188; Mayer, Legitimation, pp. 6970.
67 Ep. 10*.5; NBA 23A, pp. 8285; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, p. 264: Quarum autem potestatum vel quorum officiorum cura lex ista, vel si qua alia de hac re lata fuerit, habere possit
executionem, ut Africa suis non amplius evacuetur indigenis Discussions in Roug, Escroquerie, pp. 183188; J. Szidat, Zum Sklavenhandel in der Sptantike (Aug. epist. 10*), Historia
34 (1985), pp. 560571; Lenski, Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis, p. 87; Mayer, Legitimation, pp. 6970.
68 Ep. 10*.8; NBA 24A, pp. 8687; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 265266.
69 Dossey, Judicial Violence, p. 111, remarks that, while manumission was permitted in
a church, in this case it happened outside the church edifice. See her chapter, p. 111, n. 57,
for the contention that bishops had a jurisdiction over the manumission of slaves that went
beyond arbitration.
64
184
chapter seven
the bishops court, probably because the bishop and his clergy had urgently
to prevent the imminent departure of the traders and their dubious cargo.
This episode highlights the weakness of civil authority and the uncertainty
prevailing in North Africa in the first quarter of the fifth century.70
Sometimes when he was indeed exercising his role in the audientia episcopalis a bishop could be caught between the decrees of different councils,
as the case of the reprobate cleric Abundantius illustrates. Augustine heard
Abundantius case and divested him of his parochial duties, then wrote
to the primate of Numidia, Xanthippus, to explain that, according to the
decrees of the Council of Carthage (13 September 401), the accused had a
year after the council to pursue his case, whereas the decree of the earlier
Council of Carthage (348 ce) stipulated that any retrial of a cleric in a criminal case be judged by six bishops, a kind of audientia episcopalis extraordinaire.71 Augustine appears to imply that the gross misdeeds of Abundantius
demand a speedy retrial at the hands of the bishop of Hippo, lest the sins
of the accused be accounted to the church. The case of the comes, Classicianus, who wrote to Augustine after his whole household had been placed
under collective anathema by Bishop Auxilius in Mauretania Caesariensis,
presents a different problematic, again one that does not involve the episcopal court but rather a promised appeal by Augustine to the next African
council and to the apostolic see. Here once more Augustine treads the path
of mercy, arguing against the justice of collective anathema, which could
lead to an innocent person dying without baptism.72
In Letter 20* Augustine writes to the Roman laywoman, Fabiola, concerning his problems with Antoninus, a young, inexperienced monk whom he
himself had too hastily ordained bishop of the small town of Fussala.73 With
70 On which in general see C. Lepelley, La crise de lAfrique romaine au dbut du V e

sicle d aprs les Lettres nouvellement dcouvertes de saint Augustin, Comptes rendus des
sances de l acadmie des inscriptions et belles lettres (Paris, 1982), pp. 445463; Szidat, Zum
Sklavenhandel, p. 369; Roug, Escroquerie, p. 183.
71 Ep. 65; NBA 21/1, pp. 538541; trans. Teske, WSA 2/1, pp. 255256. On this letter see
Harries, Law, Society, and Authority, p. 199, n. 28; A. Pugliese, Der hl. Augustinus als Richter.
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der episcopalis audientia, in ed. Hellebrand, Augustinus als
Richter, pp. 2159, at pp. 5253.
72 Ep. 1*; NBA 23A, pp. 27; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 227229. Cf. Ep. 250 on the same
subject; G. Folliet, Le dossier de l affaire Classicianus (Epistulae 250 and 1*), in Les lettres de
saint Augustin, pp. 129146 (pp. 143146 on the rank of Classicianus); Uhalde, Expectations of
Justice, pp. 3941; and Mayer, Legitimation, pp. 6768.
73 NBA 23A, pp. 160189; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, pp. 299312. See further J.E. Merdinger,
Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven, London, 1997), pp. 154
182; W.H.C. Frend, Fussala: Augustines Crisis of Credibility (Ep. 20*), in Les lettres de saint
185
a few like-minded people the new bishop used his power to rob and plunder his flock, to the point where, according to Augustine, his crimes were so
numerous that there were not enough judges to deal with the cases.74 When
the disgraced bishop was excommunicated, he appealed the decision and
went to Rome to petition Pope Boniface, who appointed episcopal judges
to hear the case in Numidia; some of these had been asked for by Antoninus. The trial was protracted and the court convened in more than one
location because of complaints both from Antoninus and from the communities which refused to have him reinstated as their bishop. Augustine
declined to be part of the process: I myself was absent, because I do not
dare to face the people of Fussala.75 As a last resort the bishops court sent
a letter and a copy of the legal proceedings to Rome.76 On the death of Boniface (4 September 422) Augustine wrote to his successor, Pope Celestine,
explaining the affair, and revealing his sorrow and worry, which brought
him within an ace of considering resigning his position.77 Although we are
not informed about the outcome of Antoninus case, from both these letters we are given a good idea of the magnitude of Augustines problem,
indeed crisis, in the Antoninus affair, and evidence of the workings of an
episcopal court comprised of multiple bishops operating in different locations.
In conclusion, on the basis of his letters we could say that the cases that
came before Augustines episcopal court were wide-ranging and predominantly concerned with clerics, but that at the same time he felt compelled
to intervene with the weight of his authority in cases outside his court where
the government or the legal system had broken down or was lacking. This
reflects the blurring of distinctions between the ecclesiastical and secular
spheres. While the exact role of the audientia episcopalis in the first half
of the fifth century is difficult to determine and is much debated by modern scholars, and despite the fact that, as Munier contests, at best it was a
real but limited role,78 we find a bishop like Augustine regularly involved in
Augustin, pp. 251265; S. Lancel, L affaire d Antonius de Fussala: pays, choses et gens de
la Numidie d Hippone saisis dans la dure d une procdure denqute piscopale, ibid.,
pp. 267285; and C. Munier, La question des appels Rome daprs la Lettre 20* dAugustin,
ibid., pp. 287299; Lenski, Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis, pp. 8586.
74 Ep. 20*.67; NBA 23A, pp. 164167.
75 Ep. 20*.15; NBA 23A, pp. 172175; trans. Teske, WSA 2/4, p. 306.
76 On the significance of Antoninus case in the development of the process of appealing
to Rome see Munier, La question des appels Rome, esp. pp. 298299.
77 Ep. 209.10; NBA 23, pp. 502505; trans. Teske, WSA 2/3, p. 397.
78 Audientia episcopalis, in ed. Mayer, Augustinus-Lexikon, p. 515.
186
chapter seven
secular criminal trials79 and on other occasions, as in Letter 10*, side-stepping

the episcopal court and exercising his authority in a power vacuum. Frustrating and complicated as the evidence about the bishops court in this
period may be, together with the legal codes Augustines episcopal letters
occupy a sovereign place in interpreting the phenomenon.
Case-Study 2. Pelagius I of Rome (556561)
The 96 letters of Pelagius I, conveniently collected in an edition of 1956,80
indicate that the shift to micro-management had taken place. Pelagius
father John was a vicarianus, either a deputy to the praetorian prefect of
a civil diocese, or a civil servant on the staff of a vicarius.81 The production
of so many letters was aided by Pelagius notary Valentine.82 Pelagius correspondence depicts a Roman bishop trying to juggle the sometimes conflicting demands of the Three Chapters controversy, along with the disastrous
impact on the Roman population of two decades of war between Byzantine
forces and the Goths in Italy.83 The archdeacon Pelagius had been the candidate of the Byzantine general Narses, chosen to replace the recalcitrant
Vigilius, and was seen as a traitor to the Three Chapters supporters in Rome
and northern Italy.84 This left him with few friends in high places when the
waves of plague and famine wracked Italy after the Gothic wars.
79
For details see Lenski, Evidence for the Audientia episcopalis, p. 96 n. 60.
P.M. Gass, C.M. Batlle, eds., Pelagii I Papae epistulae quae supersunt (556561), Scripta
et Documenta 8 (Montserrat, 1956).
81 LP 1, p. 303. See Davis, The Book of Pontiffs, Glossary, p. 141, s.v. vicarianus. On Pelagius
generally, see also C. Sotinel, EDP 1, s.v. Pelagio I, pp. 529536, and the bibliography cited
therein.
82 LP 1, p. 303. 72 are preserved in Ewalds edition of the British Collections, pp. 533562.
Some of these are among the seventeen found in ed. Lwenfeld, pp. 1221. Another two are
found in an appendix to Gregory Is Registrum: Ep. 5 to Sapaudus of Arles, and Ep. 6 to Valerian
the Patrician; ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892), pp. 442446. The survival of the
latter two in an appendix to Gregorys Registrum challenges Nobles assertion that the papal
archives from the fifth and sixth centuries do not survive in even fragmentary form, even if
the majority do have to be pieced together almost entirely from recipients copies or from
special collections like the Collectio Avellana, as he asserts (T.F.X. Noble, Theodoric and the
Papacy, in Teodorico il Grande e i goti dItalia. Atti dei congressi 13 [Spoleto, 1993], pp. 395425,
at p. 397).
83 On the Three Chapters controversy, see Chapter 5 above. See also Sessa, Formation of
Papal Authority, pp. 122123, on how the bishop of Romes doctrinal interests and domestic
interests coincided in the appointment of the deacon Sebastian as the chief papal agent in
Dalmatia (Vigilius, Ep. 14).
84 Ep. 10 to bishops of Tuscia Annonaria (Jaff 939); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 3134 (16 April
557). The bishops had not only left communion with Pelagius but had also demanded that
he ratify their schism. Cf. LP 1, p. 303. See Sotinel, EDP 1, s.v. Pelagio I, p. 533.
80
187
In a pathetic plea, written at the end of 556, Pelagius asks Sapaudus,

bishop of Arles, to send him revenue from the papal estates in Gaul, because
the estates in Italy have been rendered desolate and there is no one to
recover their value.85 Pelagius requests items of clothing for the poor, even
white tunics which were only worn by the wealthy. He repeats his request
for Sapaudus aid in 557 (Ep. 9), when he commends the Romans who have
taken refuge in Arles to the Gallic bishops care, and asks him again to help
the poor of Rome.
In a letter to the bishop of Heracleia, Pelagius professes himself overcome by grief because of the lack of scruples of those people who demand
tribute from the church for fields that are uncultivated. Poverty is everywhere; Pelagius has nothing to live on and as a result cannot help the
poor.86 Towards the end of his pontificatebetween 560 and 8 March 561
Pelagius wrote in desperation to the praetorian prefect of Africa, seeking
help. He admits to Boethius that after 25 years of war and devastation in
Italy, he needs subsidies to be sent from islands and remote locations to the
church of Rome for clerics and the poor.87 In a letter to Narses that probably
reflects a breakdown with his patron, he tells the patrician in no uncertain
terms not to give the property of the poor to those who suffer no want.88
Pelagius was less generous when the property or the revenues of his own
church were threatened. This reflects the extreme regionalism of the Roman
bishops crisis management strategies, even within Italy. Pelagius instructs
Bishop Severus of Priorato de Turrita (Spoleto) to return to the church of
Priorato the sacred vessels sold by the trader Albinus, now a cleric of the
church. Sacred vessels cannot be used for profane purposes.89 He rebukes
John of Nola for having thoughtlessly sought from him permission to sell
the sacred vessels of the parish of Suessula.90 If this parish cannot possibly
survive because of its abject poverty, Pelagius writes, John should incorporate it into the church of Nola and its cult. Again it will be necessary to look
after cultivation of the fields so that at least the church of Nola will be up
85
Ep. 4 to Sapaudus (Jaff 943); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 1113 (14 December 556).
Ep. 94 to Bishop Benignus of Heracleia (556561) (no Jaff nr.); eds. Gass, Batlle,
pp. 223224.
87 Ep. 85 to Boethius, praetorian prefect of Africa (Jaff 963); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 207
208.
88 Ep. 90 to Narses the patrician (Jaff 962); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 216. 556561.
89 Ep. 82 to Severus, bishop of Camerina (Umbria) (Jaff 966); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 200
202 (end of March 559 to 3 March 561).
90 Ep. 17 to John, bishop of Nola (Jaff 976); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 5152 (Septemberend
December 558).
86
188
chapter seven
to paying their revenues. We mentioned in the previous chapter the letter

to John and Hilaria that contained Pelagius remark that bishops of Rome
were forbidden to bequeath goods acquired during their term as pope.91
It can perhaps best be understood in the context of the decree issued by
Basil, praetorian prefect under Odovacer, to an assembly of Roman clergy in
St Peters, after the death of Pope Simplicius in 483. The decree prohibited
any pope from alienating the goods and ornaments of the churches under
penalty of anathema to the vendor,92 a measure adopted apparently to prevent prospective popes from bribing their way into election. In his speech to
the plebs and populace, Pelagius also avowed his opposition to the practice
of simony in attaining preferment to any clerical order, from doorkeeper to
bishop, according to the LP.93 Not only were the popes forbidden to sell their
churchs goods, but apparently they could not even leave them as bequests.
One can only speculate as to the context of this short letter to John and
Hilaria, and ask if the wealthy couple were perhaps asking for a return of
their gift after Pelagius or his predecessors death, in much the same way as
we prefer to make tax deductible donations to charity organizations today.
The administration of papal estates was carefully audited, as two letters
of 558 show. In the first, Pelagius reproves Dulcitius, defensor of Apulia, for
falsifying the date in collecting payments and accumulating funds, thereby
causing financial and administrative headaches for Pelagius.94 In the second letter, Pelagius orders the defensor Vitus to supervise the administration
of the papal estates because he will have to collect revenue from the seventh indiction, and requests him to send a report to be lodged in the papal
archive, as is customary.95 The importance of the papal notaries in administrating the patrimonies is obvious in Letter 88 to Melleus the subdeacon.
Papal notaries have told Pelagius that since Melleus was put in charge of
the patrimonium no accounts have been forthcoming from him. Melleus is
warned to rectify this omission for his own sake and that of the church.96
91
Ep. 26 to Hilaria and John (Jaff 985); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 81; cf. Chapter 6, n. 52 above.
The decree was reversed at the Roman Synod of 502; MGH AA 12, p. 445.
93 LP 1, p. 303.
94 Ep. 12 to Dulcitius, defensor (Jaff 949); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 4142 (January 558). Cf.
Ep. 29 (Jaff 988) to Dulcius, defensor of Apulia, in February 559, informing him that a deacon
and a bishop have been ordained for the town of Luceria. Gass and Batlle, p. 41, suggest that
Dulcitius and Dulcius are to be identified as the same person.
95 Ep. 13 to Vitus, defensor (Jaff 950); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 43 (end AugustSeptember
558).
96 Ep. 88 to Melleus the subdeacon (Jaff 957); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 214 (556561); cf. Ep.
28 to Melleus, on what kind of person is to be ordained abbot of a monastery (February 559.)
92
189
Pelagius letters reveal the same expectation as we saw in Gelasius that

misdemeanours of clergy will be dealt with by ecclesiastical rather than
secular courts. In a letter to King Childebert, Pelagius I expresses his amazement that Childebert has permitted Bishop Sapaudus to appear in court at
the behest of another bishop.97 Pelagius recommends that in future the laws
of the church not be repealed. Sapaudus had only recently been appointed
vicar of the apostolic see, at the request of Childebert.98
Only in exceptional cases does Pelagius intervene over another bishops
head. It is more usual for him to instruct the local bishop to deal with cases
involving laypersons and clergy at the local level. In Letter 22 he recalls that
he had already deputed the audientiam to other judges in the case of a
long-running dispute between the churches of Volturno and Bari, and now
refers the matter to three bishops who should find out what the deputy
judges decided, and hand down a sentence in writing to the guilty parties,
with the assistance of the defensor Constantine.99 He is pleased to tell other
bishops how to resolve law cases which are unworthy of Christians, as the
time, subject and status of the parties demands.100 He also tells the defensor
Benegestus how to conduct himself in judicial cases pertaining to clerics.101
A cleric of any rank must address his complaint against a layperson to the
judge of the province, but a layperson who wants to have a cleric of any
rank deposed must direct his complaints to the bishops in the same city or
territory.102 Obviously the segregation of ecclesiastical and secular business
was calculated to favour the cleric under suspicion, not the lay plaintiff.
A distinctive development in the sixth century was the Roman bishops
willingness to use secular force in disciplinary matters, a last resort when
the capabilities of the audientia episcopalis had been exhausted. These
97 Ep. 8 to King Childebert (Jaff 948); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 2627 (between 3 February
and 13 April 557); cf. Ep. 5 cited in the note below.
98 Ep. 5 to Sapaudus (Jaff 944); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 1417 (3 February 557); Ep. 6 to King
Childebert (Jaff 945); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 1819 (3 February 557). Pelagius indicates that
he has agreed to his request: Sapaudus has become vicar of the see of Rome and has the use
of the pallium.
99 Ep. 22 to Bishops Vincent, Geminus and Constant (Jaff 981); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 67
69.
100 Ep. 96 to Bishop Eleutherius (no Jaff nr.); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 227228 (end of 558
to 561?). Igitur, auctoritate potiore ducta ad medium, benignior et humanior intellectus qui
reperiri poterit ibi, doceat terminare litem, instruat sententiam proferre, prout tempus et res
uel qualitas personarum expostulat.
101 Ep. 91 to Benegestus the defensor (Jaff 964); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 217218 (556561).
102 Ep. 81 to Sergius the cancellarius (Jaff 965); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 198199 (between
end of March 559 and 3 March 561).
190
chapter seven
misdemeanours often went hand-in-hand with schism. One group of letters

(Epp. 60, 69, 70, 71) shows Pelagius bringing imperial force to bear on the
punishment of a dishonest bishop, Paulinus of Fossombrone, one of a group
of schismatics, whom we understand to be opponents of the Three Chapters who had broken off communion with Pelagius. In a letter to Narses,
he enquires about the delay in the arrival of Paulinus, whom Narses had
promised to deliver on another occasion, and urges the general to punish
the crimes that Paulinus and other schismatics have committed through
Narses negligence.103 Pelagius urges Narses to use his authority as patrician
to exert force on them, since there are a thousand other examples and laws
in which it is clearly recognized that those who are tearing the church apart
ought to be punished by those with civil powers, not only by exile but also
by proscription of their property and harsh imprisonment.104 These petitions seem to have been fruitless, because at around the same time Pelagius requests the Byzantine magister militum John to put the pseudo-bishop
Paulinus in chains and send him to the pontiff for the sake of the peace of
the church.105 The defensores also had a crucial role to play in helping John,
bringing ecclesiastical authority as well as military power to bear against
Paulinus.106 Pelagius found it necessary to repeat his request to the magister
militum to arrest Paulinus and send him to Rome. John was urged to chain
up all the other clergy designated by the letter-bearer, and either hand them
over to the local bishop or send them to Rome.107 It is interesting that Pelagius would not entrust the list of names of the guilty to writing but only to
the memory of the letter-bearer. Pelagius adds confidently that the defensores Basil and Oclatinus will assist the church, having just asked them to
do so.108
Another case of Pelagius appeal to civil authorities surfaces in Pelagius
advice to Elpidius, bishop of Catana, to convey the case of Anastasius, the
103 Ep. 60 to Narses the patrician (Jaff 1019); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 159161 (end of March
to shortly after 16 April 559).
104 Ep. 60; eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 161.2832: cum mille alia exempla et constitutiones sint
quibus euidenter agnoscitur, ut facientes scissuras in sanctam ecclesiam, non solum exiliis
sed et proscriptione rerum [suarum] et dura custodia, per publicas postestates debeant
coherceri. Our translation.
105 Ep. 69 to John magister militum (Jaff 952); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 178179 (end of March
106 Ep. 70 to Basil and Oclatinus defensores (Jaff 1028); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 180181
(beginning of April to shortly after 16 April 559).
107 Ep. 71 to John magister militum (Jaff 1029); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 182 (beginning of April
108 See Ep. 70 cited above in n. 106.
191
son of Elpidius predecessor,109 to the praetor Leo.110 There had been some
problem with Elpidius election in February 559, as certain parties had
worked to secure immunity from the future bishop, and others opposed his
election. In a letter to the clergy of Catana, the deacon Elpidius, bishop-elect,
is warned not to win over electors by bribes.111 These instances show us the
limits of the judicial powers of the bishops court, even in the case of the
bishop of Rome.
The Pelagian correspondence is rich in the material pertaining to crisis
that is so conspicuously absent in the letters of fifth-century Roman bishops, offering us a rare glimpse of the range of issues that claimed a Roman
bishops attention. Pelagius is just as involved in the Three Chapters controversy as in the day-to-day problems of feeding and clothing the Roman
population, and supervising litigation of laypersons and clergy. Unfortunately it is impossible to say if this breadth indicates a change in management style, from a primary focus on heresy and doctrinal matters to
micro-management, or just the increasingly scrupulous preservation practices of recipients of papal correspondence. Again it is difficult to determine
whether Pelagius involvement in so many levels of papal administration
was the product of necessity in extremis, or his personal style. The letter
where he tells a count to prune his trees within five or six days before they
drop their seeds is indicative of his micro-management.112 In any case, the
range of functions that Pelagius adopted as well as the meticulous recording
of papal correspondence was carried on by Gregory I from 590, and seems
more of a trend than a one off.
109
110
111
112
Anastasius is only known from this reference: Gass, Batlle, p. 183.

Ep. 72 to Elpidius (Jaff 1030); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 183184 (April 559); cf. Epp. 23, 42.
Ep. 23 (Jaff 982); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 7072 (2 February 559).
Ep. 76 to Gurdimer comes (Jaff 1034); eds. Gass, Batlle, p. 191 (April 559).
CONCLUSION
Evidence for Crisis Management in Episcopal Letters

The methodological challenges of using letters as a source for crisis management in Late Antiquity are many, as discussed in Chapter 2. With all
their shortcomings as sources for interpreting the events of the fifth and
sixth centuries, however, episcopal letters remain one of our most valuable
sources on the strategies adopted by bishops in East and West throughout this turbulent period in the history of the Later Roman Empire. The
crises faced by bishops in Late Antiquity have much in common with those
faced by leaders today: displaced peoples, including refugees, asylum seekers, exiles and prisoners of war; natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods
and famine; religious controversies, especially dogmatic divisions within
Christianity; violent conflict; the breakdown of structures of dependence;
and social abuses. While the definition of social abuse has changed considerably over fifteen centuries, the definition of corruption has remained
much the same, in ecclesiastical institutions as much as anywhere else. Civil
and ecclesiastical legislation was used to normalize corrupt practices such
as simony, if they could not be stamped out by bishops. In all of the instances
of crisis listed above, epistolary networks were one of the few means that
bishops had at their disposal, to intervene.
The coverage of crisis in the letters written by individual bishops from
different regions is uneven. As we stressed in relation to natural disasters
in Chapter 4, crisis in the fifth and sixth centuries is reported much more
frequently in works of history, rhetoric, apologetics and philosophy than in
letters. Comparison with other literary sources has shown that the manifest
lack of evidence of natural disasters in letters is endemic to the epistolary
genre. This is not a surprising fact given the disparate and sometimes ad
hoc ways in which their letters were transmitted. Other narrative sources
are more crisis oriented, as Noble puts it, while episcopal letters are meant
to conceal as much as they reveal.1 We rely, therefore, on chronicles, histories
1 Theodoric and the Papacy, p. 398. Noble was speaking only of letters of the bishop
of Rome, but the statement is true of episcopal letters as a whole, within the limits of our
investigation.
194
conclusion
and liturgical compositions, rather than on letters, for some understanding

of the impact of natural disasters during the period in question and how
they were explained, processed and spiritualised.
Episcopal letters from our period are also silent on other topics of considerable moment, such as political crises. This passing over in silence of
catastrophes seems to be particularly acute in Roman episcopal sources. For
example, the threefold sack of Rome in 408410, led by the Visigoth Alaric,
is not mentioned by Innocent I, the incumbent of the bishopric at the time,
apart from a passing reference to the reason for his presence in Ravenna
in 409/410 because of the most pressing difficulties of the Roman people,2
(though we do not know if he went to petition Honorius for help, or perhaps to escape danger to his own person).3 Similarly the Vandal conquest
of Carthage in 439, which forced refugees to flee to Rome and caused foodshortages (admittedly of human manufacture), does not figure in the letters
of Bishop Sixtus III; and, perhaps most surprising of all, the successful diversion of the Huns in 452 by a Roman senate delegation led by Bishop Leo
Magnus is not mentioned in Leos own letters.
It is the context of episcopal preoccupation with catastrophes that may
account for the total absence of letters pertaining to the eventful episcopal
career of Ephrem of Amida, during which he was responsible for rehabilitating the city of Antioch from two successive earthquakes as well as other
disasters: distressing emergencies may simply have militated against letterwriting when action was called for instead. Nevertheless, letters were an
important means of managing crises in the absence of better communication networks and centralized agencies for dealing with particular problems. What is rather surprising is how strongly the old forms and functions
of epistolary address persisted in the context of war, social upheaval, religious violence, natural disaster and the concomitant widespread poverty.
2 Ep. 16 to Marcian, bishop of Nis; PL 20, 519B: Verum nunc in Ravennati urbe mihi
constituto, propter Romani populi necessitates celeberrimas . See G.D. Dunn, The Care
of the Poor in Rome and Alarics Sieges, in eds. G.D. Dunn, D. Luckensmeyer, L. Cross, Prayer
and Spirituality in the Early Church, vol. 5: Poverty and Riches (Strathfield, 2009), pp. 319333.
3 Cf. Zosimus, Hist. nov. 5.45.5; ed. F. Paschoud vol. 3/1: Livre V, Zosime. Histoire nouvelle,
Collection des Universits de France (Paris, 2003), p. 67; Sozomen, HE 9.7.1; eds. J. Bidez,
G.C. Hansen, trans. A.-J. Festugire, B. Grillet, Histoire ecclsiastique. Livres VIIIX, Sozomne,
SC 516 (Paris, 2008), p. 408.
conclusion
195
Strategies of Crisis Management

As we have seen in our survey of more than two thousand letters from
Greek and Latin-speaking bishops across the later Roman empire from 410
to 590ce, common strategies of crisis management included both epistolary and other responses. Crisis management through letters included petitioning, dogmatic instruction, discipline and administration, containment
and social exclusion.4 The success of these strategies relied on the strength
of a bishops social networks, the most important bond being that of the
patron-client, as discussed in Chapter 7. Social exclusion could be both epistolary and non-epistolary. Other non-epistolary responses included diplomatic embassies, although these carried letters; synods and councils; proscriptions; material aid; violent coercion; liturgical responses; and material
aid. These strategies of crisis management are discussed below with examples.
Petitioning
In this strategy the sovereign tactic consisted of using personal networks
to petition others for help, either for the writer(s) or on behalf of others. Petitioning worked both horizontally and from the bottom up. Targets
included highly-placed friends, nobles, other bishops, and imperial officials. We have demonstrated in two case-studies the gamut of advocates
bishops, sophists, imperial officials, and even the empresswhom Bishop
Theodoret of Cyrrhus could call upon both to provide aid to refugees and
to address the plight of tenant-farmers in his diocese who were financially
crippled by successive crop failures.5 For his part Gelasius of Rome protested
successfully on three occasions to Emperor Theodoric against those who
had gone to royal courts unlawfully while concealing their status as clerics,6 while Pelagius I complained that Childebert had permitted Bishop
Sapaudus to appear in court at the behest of another bishop.7 Bishops of
Rome, notably Leo, Felix, Gelasius, Anastasius II and Hormisdas, petitioned
the imperial family in their combats against heresy, Gelasius wrote to engage
4 These strategies show some overlap with the thirteen types of letters identified in
Chapter 2 above: 1. Polemical; 2. Dogmatic; 3. Pastoral; 4. Consolation; 5. Friendship; 6.
Disciplinary; 7. Administrative; 8. Recommendation; 9. Advice; 10. Admonition; 11. Hortation;
12. Decree; 13. Judgement.
5 See Chapter 3, Case-study 4, and Chapter 4, Case-study 2.
6 Frgs. 11, 13; Thiel, pp. 489, 490, and Ep. 46; Ewald, pp. 521522.
196
conclusion
Theodoric and Hereleuva in his concerns about poverty,8 and Pelagius II

enlisted the assistance of Emperor Maurice against invasion by Lombards.9
North African bishops like Augustine and Possidius petitioned Rome10 when
they saw no other avenue of solving or averting a crisis at home. Imperial
responses to petitions could take the form of an interdiction, which prevented the offender from inheriting property or serving in the army or civil
service, and/or a simple order of exile or relegation, as we see in the cases of
Nestorius, Theodoret, Severus of Antioch, Fulgentius and Vigilius.11 As we
discussed in Chapter 3, in its turn exile or relegation could amount to a
death sentence, depending on where the exile was sent. Petitioning by letter was a strategy in initiating the ransom of captives, as we see in letters of
Bishop Faustus of Riez to Bishop Ruricius of Limoges,12 and of Bishop Avitus
of Vienne.13
Dogmatic Instruction
This strategy, which operated both from the top-down and horizontally,
worked best with mass media saturation, for example by circulating synodical letters (as we saw in the case of the DM), decretals (for example, those
of Gelasius and Hormisdas), and Festal Letters, the Alexandrian equivalent
of broadsheets.14 Dogmatic letters could also be used to renounce a former
position, as we see in the Constitutum of Vigilius of Rome.15 Polemical and
dogmatic letters were the best means of instruction, along with letters of
advice, admonition, hortation, decree and judgement, as is amply illustrated
throughout the controversy around Nestorius,16 the Acacian schism,17 and
Paul the Black.18 Instruction in a crisis usually involved the use or abuse
of the authors spiritual authority: the strategy of spiritual bullying and/or
Frg. 36; Thiel, p. 502.

Pelagius II, Ep. 1 to Maurice; ed. L. Hartmann, MGH Epp. 2 (Berlin, 1899), pp. 440441.
10 Augustine, Ep. 20* (the case of Antoninus of Fussala, on which see Chapter 7, Casestudy 1); Epp. 91, 104 (on Possidius).
11 See the five case-studies in Chapter 3.
12 Epp. 103, 104.
13 See e.g. Epp. 49, 10, 35.
14 On Theophilus of Alexandrias Festal Letters 16 and 17, dealing with the crisis of the
Origenist monks in Alexandria, see P. Allen, Stage-Managing Crisis, pp. 170171. On the use
to which Cyril of Alexandria put the Festal Letter see Chapter 4, Case-study 1.
16 See Chapter 5.
17 See Chapter 5.
9
conclusion
197
promising spiritual rewards is particularly evident in letters to emperors

and kings. Spiritualizing a crisis was another common strategy, as we see
in the letters of Augustine dealing with poverty, or in those of Leo I and
Gelasius, where attacking heresy is commonly treated as a holy war. An
appeal to the writers authority was often backed by an appeal to secular
and/or ecclesiastical law and the use of legalistic terminology, for example
in Gelasius19 and Augustine.20
Discipline and Administration
Intervening in or engineering episcopal elections was also a favourite strategy in crisis, as demonstrated by Leo Is intercession for the Chalcedonian
Timothy Salofaciolus against Timothy Aelurus as patriarch of Antioch21 and
by the letters recommending the election of Paul the Black over a century
later.22 Pastoral and disciplinary letters abound in bishops correspondence,
particularly when the authors are dealing with clerical or social abuse, the
bishops of Rome being especially exercised by such matters.23
Containment
Along the lines of Dont mention the war (unless it is going on elsewhere),
the strategy of containment involved leaving things out of the epistolary
record deliberately. The prevalence of this strategy is difficult to assess
because of the poor survival rates for episcopal correspondence in this
period and the threat of censorship in political hot spots, but by using contemporaneous records from chronicles, histories, and hagiography we conclude that the bishops of Rome especially did not like to admit to security
breaches. We have pointed out that natural disasters did not figure largely in
episcopal correspondence, in comparison with other types of crisis, notably
religious conflict and religious violence. Some of the information that bishops did not wish to record in writing, for example Pelagius Is list of schismatics to be brought back to Rome in chains,24 could be committed to the
letter-bearer to convey verbally, because the information was sensitive for
security or other reasons.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Esp. Epp. 1, 27; Thiel, pp. 287311, 422435.

Ep. 24*. See further Chapter 7, Case-study 1.
See Chapter 5.
See further Chapter 6, Case-study 2.
Ep. 69 to John magister militum (Jaff 952); eds. Gass, Batlle, pp. 178179.
198
conclusion
Social Exclusion
This strategy was used by bishops in their response to heresy and took several forms. Its most serious manifestation was blacklisting, that is, threatening or pronouncing anathemata, and/or removing names from the diptychs
read aloud in the liturgy. As in the case of Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, this practice could continue long after the death of the offender. The
deposition of clergy in a bishops jurisdiction was another form of handling
crisis, one much in evidence after Chalcedon, as was demonizing an opponent, as we saw in the case of Synesius of Cyrene.25 Ordering public penance,
for example in Gelasius condemnation of Bishop Misenus,26 and seeking
imperial backing through letters of petition that blackened the names of
ones rival, demonstrated in the case of Leo of Rome vs. Timothy Aelurus,
were other popular strategies of social exclusion. Issuing heresiologies that
likened the non-orthodox of their day to more ancient hereticsespecially
the much-hated Ariansvia the most tenuous dogmatic genealogies was
a common tactic in synodical letters, which a new bishop disseminated to
his episcopal colleagues on his consecration. Indices, or lists of forbidden
books, were another weapon in the bishops arsenal, used for example by
Gelasius in his letter De libris accipiendis et non accipiendis27 and copied by
Hormisdas.28
Diplomatic Embassies
These routinely departed with letters, gifts, bribes or tribute. One of the most
famous representations to the imperial court is the consignment of gifts
sent by Cyril of Alexandria before the Council of Ephesus,29 but Leo I and
Hormisdas also availed themselves of similar strategies before the Councils of Chalcedon and in the context of the Acacian schism respectively.30
Other bishops, deacons, defensores ecclesiae or apocrisiarii were dispatched
as agents or letter-bearers on embassiessuch envoys could (usually) be
trusted to impart sensitive information verbally.
25

Ep. 30; Thiel, pp. 437447.
27 Ep. 42; Thiel, pp. 454471. Trans. in Neil, Allen, Documents from Gelasius I, forthcoming,
where the attribution to Gelasius is vindicated.
28 Ep. 125; Thiel, pp. 931938.
29 See Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters, pp. 6667 n. 8.
30 See Chapter 5.
26
conclusion
199
Synods and Councils

Convening local synods was an episcopal strategy in times of crisis over disciplinary or dogmatic matters. We find the North African bishops Aurelius
and Augustine, all the Roman bishops, and the patriarchs of Constantinople
managing various crises in this way. Vetoing or boycotting ecumenical councils convened by an emperor was a further tactic, one employed by Leo I
regarding the Councils of Ephesus II and Chalcedon,31 as was the manipulation of conciliar acta or refusing to endorse them.
Proscription
It was common practice to proscribe books that had been deemed heretical. Under various bishops of Rome Manichean writings were burned in
public ceremonies outside churches or otherwise destroyed,32 as were the
apocryphal scriptures of the Priscillianists.33 These purgative activities were
aided by the issuing of lists of indexed works, such as those of Gelasius
and Hormisdas to which we referred above as a means of social exclusion.34
Indeed social exclusion was both an epistolary and a non-epistolary strategy. Proscription could also be applied to persons, such as the authors of
texts deemed heretical, as in the case of Priscillian,35 and the authors of the
Three Chapters.36 Imperial proscription obviously bleeds into violent coercion, our next category.
Violent Coercion
At the beginning of his patriarchate in Alexandria Cyril expelled the Jewish
community and confiscated their possessions, while Novatian churches
were closed;37 such actions were a frequent episcopal strategy but one which
is rarely made explicit in bishops letters. Imperial troops could be used
to coerce, imprison or exile heretics and schismatics, as we observed in
31
See Chapter 5.
See, e.g., Gelasius: LP 1, p. 255; Ep. 42.8; ed. Thiel, p. 467.
33 Leo Mag., Ep. 15.15 to Turibius of Astorga; eds. Schipper, van Oort, p. 70.
34 See nn. 27 and 28 above.
35 See, e.g. Leo Magnus reference to the imperial proscription of Priscillian and several of
his disciples in the preface to Ep. 15 to Turibius of Astorga; eds. Schipper, van Oort, p. 52.
36 Justinians condemnation of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ibas of Edessa and Theodore of
Mopsuestia, was reiterated at the Council of Constantinople II in 553, treated in Chapter 5
above.
37 Socrates, HE 7.7, 7.13.
32
200
conclusion
the cases of Augustine and the Donatists,38 Leo and the Manicheans,39 and
Pelagius I and the Three Chapters schismatics.40
Liturgical Responses
Bishops also availed themselves of liturgical strategies to explain, process
and spiritualise crises. Some thirty years after the sack of Rome by the
Arian Goth Alaric in 410, Leo devoted a sermon to the event, a liturgical
commemoration, the homilist tells us himself, that was poorly attended
whereas it should have been a reminder of Gods past mercies.41 In the face of
Visigothic incursions in Gaul Sidonius Apollinaris instituted the Rogations
ceremonies, which he adopted from Bishop Mamertus of Vienne,42 while
Severus of Antioch commemorated the end of civil war, Hunnic and Persian
invasions, and earthquakes in several of his hymns.43
Material Aid
During the displacements of population and the series of natural disasters
during the fifth and sixth centuries there were many instances of bishops
offering asylum or sanctuary in churches and monasteries as well as other
forms of material aid. Bishop Symmachus of Rome, for example, was prepared to donate food, money, clothing and relics to exiled bishops.44 Ephrem
of Antioch helped his people rebuild their city twice after earthquakes, once
in his capacity as comes Orientis and on a second occasion as patriarch.45
Under the Roman bishops Leo and Gelasius we find rebuilding and refurnishing of shrines, churches and public buildings after invasions and sieges,
together with famine relief. During the episcopate of Caesarius of Arles we
have examples of the ransoming of prisoners and captives, acts of mercy
recorded also in the letters of Avitus of Vienne.46
38
See Chapter 5 on Donatism.

See Chapter 3 on Manicheism.
41 Leo Mag., Sermo 84. See Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 118120.
42 Epp. 7.1, 5.14.
43 Discussion of all three kinds of liturgical commemorations in Allen, Stage-Managing
Crisis, pp. 163169.
44 LP 1, p. 263. See further Chapter 3.
45 See further Chapter 4.
46 On the ransoms paid by Caesarius and Avitus see Chapter 3.
39
conclusion
201
Regionalism of Episcopal Responses to Crisis

In seeking to understand the differences between crisis management strategies across the empire, it is important to stress the regionalism of episcopal
responses. In Chapter 2 we discussed the regional variations that can be
identified within three major geographical and linguistic groupings: Roman
bishops, other western bishops, and Greek-speaking (including African)
bishops, who are profiled in the Appendix to this volume.
In comparison with the rich variety of epistolary sources from bishops of
Rome in the fifth and sixth centuries, from the Greek-speaking bishops of
the empire we have little stable or comprehensive evidence on crisis management from letters, and indeed few letter-collections of any magnitude
have survived. It is not likely that Greek-speaking bishops would have differed greatly among themselves as far as crisis management strategies were
concerned. However, it is important to highlight the haphazard nature in
which the Greek letters were often transmitted, the disproportionate concentration on doctrinal issues which we find in the many letters preserved
in conciliar collections, and the large numbers of letters which are not
accounted for, possibly as the result of religious conflict, wars, and natural
disasters in the sixth century in particular. In comparison with the several
hundred letters that survive from the bishops of Rome in the fifth century,
from Constantinople from 406 to 489 (that is, from the beginning of the
tenure of Bishop Atticus to the death of Bishop Fravitta) only about 45 letters from a total of eight bishops survive. The prima facie impression that
the Greek-speaking bishops of the fifth and sixth centuries did not indulge
in micro-managing crises, large or small, to the extent that the bishops of
Rome did may then be a result of the disparity in the numbers of surviving
letters.
Non-Episcopal Responses
While bishops were significant figures in late-antique crisis management,
it is evident that they were not alone in trying to resolve crises. Other officials had an important role to play, including curiales, provincial governors,
senators, and comites. In Chapter 4 we rejected Wiemers view that town
councils from the fifth century onwards played an insignificant role in dealing with food-shortages, leaving the bishop to gain in profile as a spiritual leader and advocate for the poor. Rapp has also clearly demonstrated
that the decline in the curial class has been much exaggerated in modern
202
conclusion
scholarship, though there was a polarization within it, between rich and
poor curiales.47 In particular, the defensores (defensor civitatis and defensor
ecclesiae) were appointed to protect the needs of the oppressed, and bishops
had a crucial role in the appointment of both. Imperial support for the
institutionalized church reached its peak under Justinian I, with legal force
added behind the many disciplinary measures effecting clerics that were
ratified in church councils.48 Bishops were also given oversight of curial
roles, in an edict of 530, indication of their full integration in municipal
administration.49
Monks and abbots of monasteries, particularly in Syria, were significant
figures in the establishment of alternative sources of spiritual authority,
judgement and protection. We mentioned in the previous chapter Canon
4 of Chalcedon, entitled, Against monks doing anything against the will of
their own bishop or founding a monastery, or taking on worldly concerns.50
The implementation of this canon was driven by the new emperor Marcian, against the supporters of the rogue archimandrites Isaac, Dalmatius
and Eutyches.51 Monasteries and martyr shrines, as well as charitable institutions such as poorhouses, were brought under the urban bishops control, making them satellites of their own authority and influence.52 Beggars were required to register with the citys bishop, to keep them out of
monasteries and martyr shrines.53 However, several of the eastern epistolary
sources demonstrate that although the bishop was technically in charge,
the archimandrite also held great power, especially in disciplinary matters.54
Our study of crisis management in episcopal letters demonstrates clearly
that the dichotomy between the bishop as civil servant and the bishop as
spiritual leader in times of crisis is a false one. It is probably better to say
47
Rapp, Holy Bishops, pp. 279280.

Justinian, Nov. 131.1 (545); eds. Schoell et al., Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 3, pp. 644645.
49 CJ 1.4.26, p. 42; trans. Rapp, Holy Bishops, pp. 288289.
50 De honore monachorum, et ut nullis se actibus vel ecclesiasticis vel saecularibus
misceant, nec alienum servum praeter conscientiam domini sui recipiant. Ed., trans. Tanner,
pp. 8989*. The prehistory of this canon is discussed on p. 89* n. 3.
51 Caner, Wandering, Begging Monks, pp. 236238.
52 Ibid., p. 239, citing Canon 8, ed. Tanner, pp. 9191*.
53 Canon 11, ed. Tanner, pp. 9292*.
54 Allen, Severus of Antioch and Pastoral Care, pp. 397399. The letters of Severus include
an interesting case of an audientia episcopalis, consisting of multiple bishops plus the comes
Orientis, sitting in judgement on a monk. The monk is disciplined by Severus and the other
monks told to obey their archimandrite or face not ecclesiastical but civil law.
48
conclusion
203
that the two functions morphed as the situation required. This conclusion
approximates Rapps elegant description of the late-antique bishop as a new
urban functionary.55
Bishops created as many crises as they resolved by pursuing local interests
above all others, and making the rooting out of heresy their first priority. We
do find in the letters of bishops creative attempts to find solutions to human
suffering, but not as often as we see evidence of them using letters to wield
power for ends that were less noble, at least from a modern perspective.
55
Rapp, Holy Bishops, p. 274.
appendix
ANCIENT AUTHOR PROFILES
For the sake of brevity, the following list is restricted to episcopal authors
of the fifth and sixth centuries from whom more than one or two letters
survive. Profiles of each of these bishops are presented according to region
and linguistic origins, with references to critical editions of their letters, as
appropriate.
Greek Authors
Alexandria and Egypt
Theophilus of Alexandria
Sedit 385412. From Theophilus we have at least 23 letters (CPG 25932615)
preserved either whole or in part through a complex process of transmission. Few of these letters have survived in their entirety, and those that
have owe their existence to their inclusion in Jeromes collection of letters.
Fragments of Theophilus epistolary output are found in sources as diverse
as Palladius, Cosmas Indicopleustes, Severus of Antioch and Justinian, and
they survive not only in Greek but also in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic and
Armenian.
Of the 26 Festal Letters that Theophilus would have composed we have
remnants or translations of Letters 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 24
(CPG 25802591).1 Text of complete Festal Letters 16, 17 and 19 from Jeromes
letter-collection in CSEL 55, pp. 159181, 185211 and 213233; Eng. trans. in
N. Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (London,
New York, 2007), pp. 101117, 118139 and 183159; translations of selected
fragments of 1, 5, 6 and 10 at 4849. The most extensive Greek fragments
of other letters are found in M. Richard, Opera Minora 2 (Turnhout, Leuven,
1977) nr. 39.
1 Cf. A. Favale, Teofilo dAlessandria (345 c.412). Scritti, Vita e Dottrina, Biblioteca del
Salesianum 41 (Turin, 1958), pp. 69.
206
appendix
Cyril of Alexandria
Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. Cyril is the author of at least 110 surviving letters, some of which have survived in fragmentary form in Greek,
while others have come down to us in Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian and
Arabic translations and fragments. There is no surviving intentional lettercollection as such; rather the list made in CPG 53015411 is a compilation
largely along chronological lines (Epp. 75 and 76, and possibly also Ep. 82,
are out of order), drawing on conciliar acta, where Cyrils role was significant, and other sources, among whom are Severus of Antioch and Justinian. This compilation includes a number of letters written not by Cyril
but to him: Letters 3 and 5 from Nestorius, Letter 12 from Celestine, Letter 15 from Acacius of Beroea, Letters 22, 35, 38, 47 and 66 from John of
Antioch or his synod, Letter 29 from Alypius of Constantinople, Letter 30
from Maximian of Constantinople, Letter 36 from Paul of Emesa (but ultimately from John of Antioch), Letters 51 and 52 from Sixtus of Rome, Letter 73 from Rabbula of Edessa and Letter 75 from Atticus of Constantinople. In addition several spuria are included in the list (Epp. 80, 86, 87 and
88).
The most important collections of texts are found in La Bibliothque du
Der-Amba Shenoudi. 2. Actes du Concile dphse. Texte copte, ed. and trans.
U. Bouriant, Mmoires publis par les membres de la Mission archologique
franaise au Caire (Paris, 1892) for CPG 54065409; ed. E. Schwartz, Codex
Vaticanus gr. 1431 eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser
Zenos, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische Klasse, XXXII, 6. Abhandlung
(Munich, 1927); and ACO 1/1, pp. 17. Eng. trans. of all letters in J.I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Letters 150 and Letters 51110, 2 vols., FOTC 76
and 77 (Washington, DC, 1987). See also R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, eds.
and trans., A Collection of Unpubished Syriac Letters of Cyril of Alexandria,
CSCO 359 (Louvain, 1975; text), CSCO 360 (Louvain, 1975; trans.) for Letters 40, 44, 45, 46 and 55; L.R. Wickham, ed. and trans., Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters (Oxford, 1983) for Letters 4, 17, 40, 44, 45, 46, 55 and
83.
In addition there are 29 Festal Letters, announcing the dates of the beginning Lent and of Easter, the traditional prerogative of the Alexandrian patriarchs. These are found in PG 77, 401981 (CPG 5240); new text and French
trans. in progress by P. vieux () et al., Cyrille d Alexandrie. Lettres Festales,
SC 372, 392 and 434; Eng. trans. of this edition is in progress in P.R. Amidon (trans.) and J.J. OKeefe (intro.), St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 112,
FOTC 118 (Washington, DC, 2009).
ancient author profiles
207
Cyril was probably the most prolific exegete in Christian antiquity, devoting himself to elucidating both Old and New Testaments. He was also a
dogmatician and polemicist of great stature. A list of his extensive works
can be found in CPG from 5200 to 5411.
Synesius of Cyrene
Synesius was elected bishop of Ptolemas in the Pentapolis probably in
February 411 and was consecrated only on 1 January 412. He died mid413.
From him we have 156 letters (CPG 5640), 49 of which date from his episcopate. We have used the edition of A. Garzya, trans. D. Roques, Synsios de
Cyrne. Tome II. Correspondance. Lettres ILXIII, and Tome III. Lettres LXIV
CLVI (Paris, 2000). The manuscript tradition of these letters is very rich: they
are transmitted in 261 manuscripts. In addition, because of the popularity of
Synesius letters through the Byzantine period, they are cited many times in
an indirect tradition. Synesius composed a number of other prose works and
ten hymns (CPG 56305639).
Dioscorus I of Alexandria
Sedit 441451. About 9 letters of a dogmatic nature survive (CPG 54525461),
mostly in Syriac translation and fragmentary; three have survived thanks
to having been cited at the Council of Ephesus. See CPG for details of the
various editions.
Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria
Sedit 454477 (but in exile 460475). Eight letters survive from his time in
exile in Gangra (CPG 54765481, 54845485), some fragmentary and all in
Syriac, as well as a refutation of Chalcedon, prayers, and works against Leo
of Rome and Eutyches. Fragments are transmitted in the writing of Severus
of Antioch, and there is one surviving fragment of a lost historical work.
See R.Y. Ebied and L.R. Wickham, A Collection of Unpublished Letters of
Timothy Aelurus, JTS ns 21 (1970), pp. 321369. See also F. Nau, PO 13 (1919),
pp. 241247.
Theodosius of Alexandria
Sedit 535566. From what must have been a considerable output from a long
and influential patriarchate, we have only thirteen letters from Theodosius,
mostly surviving in a collection of anti-Chalcedonian documents in Syriac
translation, the DM. As well we have a small number of homilies preserved
in Greek (fragments), Syriac, Coptic and Arabic, an address to the empress
208
appendix
Theodora (Syriac fragments) and two theological tractates in Syriac translation.2

Damian of Alexandria
Sedit 578606. Five letters survive in Syriac (CPG 72407244), three preserved in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian and two being unedited. There
are also fragments of a treatise.
Constantinople
Atticus of Constantinople
Sedit 406425. Five letters are extant (CPG 56515655), one of which is in
Syriac. One homily and some fragments also survive.
Nestorius of Constantinople
Nestorius became patriarch in 428, was banished in 431, and died c. 450. 17
letters survive in whole or in part (CPG 56655682), the majority of which
owe their survival to the fact that they were included in conciliar collections
and were sometimes also translated into Latin. The texts are in ACO 1. Others
survive in fragmentary form in the works of Philoxenus of Mabbog, Severus
of Antioch, Justinian, Evagrius Scholasticus and Barhadbesabba. About 30
of Nestorius homilies survive, many in fragmentary form, and a group of
polemical writings.
Maximian of Constantinople
Sedit 431434. Three letters survive (CPG 57705772), preserved in conciliar
acta (ACO 1.1.3 and 1.1.7).
Proclus of Constantinople
Sedit 434446 (or 447). About ten letters survive (CPG 58965897, 5900, 5901,
5907, 5908, 5910, 5914 [fragmentary], 5915), including his famous dogmatic
Tome to the Armenians. Some of the letters were composed by a group of
people of whom Proclus seems to have been one. They are have been edited
by a variety of scholars.
Flavian of Constantinople
Sedit 446449. Six letters survive in conciliar acta (CPG 59305931, 5933
5936). See ACO 2.2.1.
2
See further Van Roey, Allen, Monophysite Texts, pp. 2356, 144251.
209
Anatolius of Constantinople
Sedit 449458. Six letters are extant (CPG 59565961), one of which is fragmentary. They are transmitted in the acta of the Council of Chalcedon
(ACO 2.4; 2.1.3; 2.5).
Acacius of Constantinople
Sedit 472488. Two genuine letters survive (CPG 59905991), one in Latin
translation and the other in Syriac in the Church History of Zachariah Scholasticus. No other works survive.
John II of Cappadocia, Patriarch of Constantinople
Sedit 518520. We have eight letters of a doctrinal and disciplinary nature
(CPG 68286835), to be found in ACO 3 and in Latin translations in PL 63,
429508. No other works survive.
Epiphanius of Constantinople
Sedit 520535. Three letters (CPG 68386840) and some canons are extant.
Jerusalem
Juvenal of Jerusalem
Sedit 422458. Two letters survive (CPG 67106711), both co-written with
others andf surviving in ACO 1.1.7 pp. 124125; 2.5, p. 9.
Armenia
Acacius of Melitene
D. after 431. One letter is preserved in conciliar acta (ACO 1.4, pp. 118119)
and another two in Armenian translation (CPG 57935795). Also extant is a
homily which Acacius delivered at the Council of Ephesus.
Antioch
John of Antioch
Sedit 429441. 57 of Johns letters survive (CPG 63016354, 63566358), the
vast majority of them preserved in conciliar collections. These texts are
in ACO 1. Also transmitted are a homily and a refutation of the Twelve
Anathemata of Cyril of Alexandria (CPG 6355 and 6360).
210
appendix
Domnus of Antioch
Sedit 442449. Three letters survive (CPG 65086510), two of which are in
Syriac and owe their survival to being cited at the Council of Ephesus.
Peter Mongus of Antioch
Sedit 482490. Two letters (CPG 54955496) are preserved in the Church
Histories of Zachariah Scholasticus and Evagrius Scholasticus.
Severus of Antioch
Sedit 512518; d. 538. Because of the imperial condemnation of his person
and works in 536, for the most part Severus letters survive in early Syriac
translations rather than in the original Greek. They have come down to us in
several groups. Originally they were divided into three classes: those before
his patriarchate, those during his patriarchate, and those after his expulsion
from his see in 518 until his death in Egypt in 538. These contained 4, 10 and
9 books respectively. In addition there were letters outside these 23 books.
The total number of letters must have exceeded 3759, of which fewer than
300 survive, thus less than one-fifteenth of the total.
1. In the first group we have 123 letters translated by the priest Athanasius
of Nisibis in 669 ce. The Syriac text of this selection was edited early
in the twentieth century by E.W. Brooks and translated into English
(The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch
in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis [Oxford, London, 1902
1903]). These letters deal solely with ecclesiastical affairs and are not in
chronological order. However, at the beginning of each letter its place
in the original collection of 23 books is stated.
2. In the second group there are 117 scattered letters, again edited and
translated by E.W. Brooks on the basis of 28 Syriac manuscripts (in
PO 12/2 [Paris, 1915] and 14/1 [Paris, 1920]). In only 26 of these do we find
any indication of what book the letter originally belonged to, and once
again the rationale behind the ordering of the collection is unclear.
3. Next we have another six letters preserved in the Church History of Ps.
Zachariah Scholasticus (Book 9.11, 13, 16, 20, 22 and 23).
4. At least four letters survive in a Coptic translation (CPG 7070 (9), (12),
(13) and (14)), and two in Arabic (CPG 7070 (15) and (16)).
5. Three so-called letters of Severus to Sergius the Grammarian survive in
an early Syriac translation made by Paul of Edessa after 519. These compositions are really theological tractates. See the study and translation
by I.R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon. Severus of Antioch and
211
Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich, 1988; repr. as The Correspondence of

Severus and Sergius, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 11 [Piscataway,
NJ, 2011]).
6. Numerous fragments, mostly in Greek, Syriac and Coptic, are also
transmitted.3
7. The Synodical Letter, composed by Severus in exile on 26 July 535 on
the accession of Theodosius to the patriarchate, is preserved in Syriac
in DM.
8. A number of unedited letters has been signalled by S.P. Brock, Some
New Letters of the Patriarch Severus, StP 12, Texte und Untersuchungen 115 (Berlin, 1975), pp. 1724.
Severus also wrote polemical and dogmatic works, homilies (125 survive),
hymns and liturgical compositions.4
Anastasius I of Antioch
Sedit 558570, 593599. Three letters survive (CPG 69546957), mostly fragmentary, as well as several treatises and homilies.
Paul of Antioch
Sedit 564581. We have four letters from him in Syriac translation (CPG 7203
7206); some Greek fragments also survive. Syriac text in DM (text), pp. 98
114, 177179, 308334, 293; (trans.), pp. 6879, 123125, 215233, 205.
Syria (outside Antioch)
Theodoret of Cyrrhus
Sedit 423466 (in exile from 449451). There are 230 letters which survive
in three collections. The first of these, the Collectio Patmensis (CPG 6239),
is edited and translated by Y. Azma, Thodoret de Cyr. Correspondance,
vol. 1, SC 40bis (Paris, 1982). The second, known as the Collectio Sirmondiana (CPG 6240), is likewise edited and translated by Azma, Correspondance, vol. 2, SC 98 (1964), containing Letters 195, and vol. 3, SC 111 (1965),
containing Letters 96147. A further 36 letters are transmitted as conciliar
documents edited in ACO (CPG 62416276). There is a complete English
translation by T. Halton forthcoming in the Library of Early Christianity
For details see Allen, Severus of Antioch and Pastoral Care, p. 389 n. 10.
See now F. Alpi, La route royale. Svre d Antioche et les glises dOrient, vol. 1. Texte,
vol. 2. Sources et documents, Bibliothque archologique et historique 188 (Beirut, 2009).
4
212
appendix
(Catholic University of America). Outside these collections there are two

letters (CPG 6277 and 6278), while ACO 4/3.1, pp. 440446, preserves letters
which Theodoret co-authored with others. Theodoret also wrote exegetical,
theological, apologetic and historical works, and a small number of his
homilies survives.
Meletius of Mopsuestia
Sedit 428? 11 letters (CPG 64556465), transmitted in conciliar acta (ACO
1.4), survive.
Alexander of Hierapolis
Sedit c. 431. 28 letters (CPG 63926419) survive, mostly preserved in conciliar
acta (ACO 1.4). No other works are extant.
Helladius of Tarsus (Cilicia Prima)
Sedit c. 431. Eight letters in Latin translation (CPG 64356442) survive in
conciliar acta (ACO 1.4).
Acacius of Beroea
D. after 433. Four of his letters (CPG 64776480) are transmitted in conciliar
acta (ACO 1.1.7; 1.1.1). In addition we have a confession of faith and Syriac
fragments of a letter to Cyril of Alexandria cited by Severus of Antioch.
Maximian of Anazarbus (Cilicia Secunda)
D. after 433. Four letters (CPG 64496453) survive in conciliar acta (ACO 1.4),
as well as the record of a synodical decision made on Maximians watch in
433ce.
Rabbula of Edessa
D. 7 August 435. Three fragmentary letters (CPG 64936495) in Syriac and
a Latin translation survive, together with spiritual works, canons and two
homilies.
Jacob Baradaeus
Sedit 542578. Ten letters survive from him (CPG 71707179), some in fragments, transmitted in DM (text), pp. 9094, 131132, 144145, 165166, 179
180, 185186, 187189, 198202, 230231; (trans.), pp. 6365, 9192, 100101,
115116, 125126, 129130, 130131, 138140, 161. In the same dossier are transmitted twelve letters or documents either addressed to Jacob or composed
by him together with other bishops (CPG 71857196).
213
Asia Minor and Surrounds

Firmus of Caesarea
D. before 439. We have 46 surviving letters (CPG 6120), most of them short
and most dating from the years 431/432. Predominant are letters of friendship. This corpus, which we may assume was but a partial representation of
Firmus epistolary output, owes its survival to being included in a mediaeval
manuscript together with other pearls of Christian Greek literature.5 CalvetSebasti and P.-L. Gatier, Firmus de Csare. Lettres, SC 350 (Paris, 1989). One
homily of Firmus survives in Ethiopic translation (CPG 6121).
Firmus was present at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and several of his letters, including one to Cyril of Alexandria afterwards, continue the polemic
against Nestorius. John of Antioch wrote one letter to Firmus, but for the rest
the bishop of Caesarea is better known to us as perhaps a typical, cultivated,
upper-class late-antique bishop who enjoyed contacts with high officials,
banquets, the hunt and his authority among the local and neighbouring
Christian communities.
Dorotheus of Marcianopolis (Moesia Secunda)
D. after 431. 4 letters (CPG 57815785) are transmitted in conciliar acta
(ACO 1.4), and another in fragmentary form in Syriac (ed. Nau, PO 13, p. 181).
A fragment from a dogmatic work survives in Severus of Antioch.
Eutherius of Tyana (Asia Minor)
D. after 433. Five letters (CPG 61486152) are preserved in conciliar acta
(ACO 1.4), and a fragment of a work against Cyril of Alexandria among the
writings of Severus of Antioch.
Julian of Halicarnassus (Asia Minor)
D. after 527. Three dogmatic letters written to Severus of Antioch (CPG 7125)
have come down to us in Syriac translation, as well as other fragments of a
dogmatic nature.
5 Firmus de Csare. Lettres, eds., trans. M.-A. Calvet-Sebasti, P.-L. Gatier, SC 350 (Paris,
1989), pp. 1013, pp. 1926 for the details.
214
appendix
Roman Authors
Rome
Innocent I
Sedit 401/402417. 44 letters, and no other works, survive in the eighteenthcentury edition by Coustant (see Abbreviations). Letter 43, edited by Cardinal A. Mai, is a fragment found in Arabic;6 Letter 44 to Aurelius of Carthage
is an addition to the corpus.7 All 44 letters will receive a new edition and
English translation by G.D. Dunn, The Letters of Innocent I (forthcoming).
Most of Innocents letters were disciplinary in content, and some preserved
important decisions on issues like clerical celibacy and remarriage after the
capture of a spouse in war. After Siricius (384399), Innocent was the second bishop of Rome to use letters in the style of imperial decretals to make
disciplinary and dogmatic rulings, which had quasi-legal force.8 Several of
Innocents letters may be categorised as decretals, although the term is
probably anachronistic when applied to this time. Innocent used this style
of letter particularly to increase the authority and jurisdiction of the bishop
of Rome. The letters of Innocent are preserved in various mediaeval canon
law collections: Collectio Quesnelliana, Collectio Dionysiana, Collectio Corbeiensis, Collectio Avellana, Collectio Hispana, Collectio Thessalonicensis and
their derivatives.9
Famous addressees include Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, Aurelius,
bishop of Carthage, Jerome and John II, bishop of Jerusalem. Innocent seems
to have been concerned to circulate his letters in collections. Letters 2733
of Innocent deal with the Pelagian controversy. LPs claim that Innocent was
the first son of a bishop of Rome to become pope himself, immediately succeeding his father Anastasius I (399401/402), has been disproved.10
6 (Jaff 319); ed. A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum (Rome, 1840), vol. 3, pp. 702704 (CPL 1643);
a Latin retroversion by Mai.
7 Coustants edition of 42 letters is reprinted in PL 20, 463608.
8 On the question of the legal status of Innocents rulings on remarriage, Dunn argues
persuasively that they did not have legal force: see Dunn, The Validity of Marriage, pp. 115
116. The same argument can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to Innocents other decretals.
9 On these collections, see D. Jasper and H. Fuhrmann, Papal Letters in the Early Middle
Ages, History of Medieval Canon Law (Washington, DC, 2001).
10 G.D. Dunn, Anastasius I and Innocent I: Reconsidering the Evidence of Jerome, VC 61
(2007), pp. 3041; and more generally, A. Pollastri, EDP 1, s.v. Innocenzo I, pp. 385391.
215
Zosimus
Sedit 417418. Eighteen letters and no other works survive, and again we rely
on the edition of Coustant, reproduced in PL 20, 642686. Zosimus, known
as the Greek pope, ruled less than a year. His letters mostly concern the
Pelagian controversy, on which he underwent a major reversal of opinion.
McBrien describes him as temperamentally impulsive, politically inept,
and culturally unprepared for the office.11 According to LP, he decreed
many things for the church, including an order that no cleric should drink
in a public tavern but only in cellars owned by the faithful, particularly by
clerics, perhaps indicating a rise in public drunkenness among the orders
of clergy.
Boniface I
Sedit 418422. Sixteen letters and no other works survive, edited by Coustant
= PL 20, 750784. The main crisis facing Boniface concerned his succession.
He and a rival, Eulalius, were ordained on the same day, and the contested
election took over seven months to be resolved by imperial intervention.
He also had to resolve the issue of ordination of slaves and of those with
obligations to a curia.12
Celestine I
Sedit 422432. Seventeen letters survive; these are edited by Coustant =
PL 50, 430558. One of these survives only in Greek, addressed to Flavian,
bishop of Philippi, and is edited in ACO 1/1.7, pp. 142143 (CPL 1653). Two
fragments, one of a letter to Nestorius, one of a letter to the clergy of Constantinople, are preserved in the testimonies of the Fathers adduced at the
Council of Chalcedon, edited in ACO 2.2/1, pp. 4142. Celestines letters are
translated into Italian by F. Gori, Papa Celestino Epistolario, Collana di Testi
patristici 127 (Rome, 1996). We also have a fragment of a sermon (CPL 1654).
One of Celestines decrees on religious life was said to be kept safe in the
church archive, according to the early sixth-century redaction of the LP. The
schism that had occurred in the previous pontificate continued, with some
Romans refusing to be in communion with Celestine.13
11 R. McBrien, Lives of the Popes. The Pontiffs from St Peter to Benedict XVI, rev. ed. (New
York, 2005), p. 67. See also A. Pollastri, EDP 1, s.v. Zosimo, pp. 392397.
12 See A. Pollastri, EDP 1, s.v. Bonifazio, pp. 398403.
13 See F. Gori, EDP 1, s.v. Celestino, pp. 406415.
216
appendix
Sixtus III
Sedit 432440. Three letters survive in the Latin Acta of the Council of
Ephesus I, and a Greek version in ACO 1/1.7, pp. 143145 (CPL 1655). Sixtus
was accused of an unspecified charge by a layman, one Bassus, and had
to face an episcopal synod, which cleared his name, according to LP. The
record of the popes trial, known as Gesta de Xysti purgatione,14 is apocryphal,
being composed in the sixth century in the context of Pope Symmachus
dispute with Laurentius.15
Leo I
Sedit 440461. Leo was the most prolific bishop of Rome of the fifth century.16
The 143 letters attributed to Leo in PL 54 are generally accepted as genuine,17
making the corpus the largest surviving papal letter-collection before the
time of Gregory the Great.
In addition to these, 30 letters not written by Leo are included in PL 54.
Nineteen of these are letters addressed to Leo by some of the most significant figures of the age, including the eastern imperial family, as well as
Eutyches, whose dogmatic teachings led to the convening of the Council of
Ephesus in 449 (Ep. 21), and the patriarch of Constantinople, Flavian (Epp. 22
and 26), to whom Leo addressed his famous Tome (Ep. 28). A further nine letters consist of exchanges between other parties: Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches (Ep. 25), Hilary the deacon to Pulcheria about the Robber Synod (Ep.
46), four letters from the western imperial family to Theodosius II requesting
a new council (Epp. 5558), and three polite refusals from Theodosius (Epp.
6264). The collection also includes two edicts of Valentinian: his edict of
445 on the punishment of Manichees (Ep. 8), and a Constitution addressed
to Aetius magister militum, supporting Leos decision against Hilary of Arles
(Ep. 11). In 431 Cyril of Alexandria sent Leo a letter, now lost, in which he
sought help from the deacon of Celestine (as Leo was then) against the pretensions of Juvenal of Jerusalem.18 From his wide network of correspondents
14 Ed. E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rome. Der Konflict zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498514), Studien und Texte (Freiburg, 1993), pp. 262270.
15 See Sessa, Formation of Papal Authority, pp. 208, 236239; E. Cavalcanti, EDP 1, s.v.
Sisto III, pp. 415423.
16 The following section is based on Neil, Leo the Great, pp. 1315. See also E. Cavalcanti,
EDP 1, s.v. Leone I, pp. 423442.
17 Cf. C. Silva-Tarouca, Nuovi studi sulle antiche lettere dei papi, vol. 1, Gregorianum 12,
(Rome, 1932), who judged many of these letters suspect or spurious, mostly on the basis of
slim stylistic evidence (Epp. 27, 36, 39, 43, 4749, 74, 111113, 118, 120, 141, 154, 157158, 160161).
18 Cf. Ep. 119.4; PL 54, 10441045, cf. note [i] where the Ballerini conclude on the basis of
217
it seems that Leo was a person of considerable influence, in both ecclesiastical and imperial circles, even before his Tome was taken up as the formular
of orthodoxy at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. His addressees include the
eastern emperor Theodosius II, and his sister Pulcheria, Theodosius successor Marcian, the western emperor Valentinian III, and his mother and regent
Galla Placidia.
Apart from the body of dogmatic letters concerning the Eutychian controversy (which are conserved in ACO 2/1 and 2/4), Pelagianism, Priscillianism and Nestorianism, most of Leos surviving letters have to do with matters
of discipline and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The preservation of so many of
Leos letters for posterity in the papal archive19 bears witness to the value that
was placed on this bishop as an ecclesiastical lawgiver. 97 sermons also survive, edited by A. Chavasse, Santi Leonis Magni Romani Pontificis tractatus
septem et nonaginta, CCSL 138 and 138A (Turnhout, 1973), which came out
in the same year as R. Dolles first revisions of his four volumes of Leos sermons with a French translation: Sermons de Lon le Grand, SC 22bis, 49bis,
74bis, 200 (Paris, 19612003).
Hilary
Sedit 461468. Eight letters survive from Hilarys pontificate (Letters 4 and
612, in the edition of Thiel (see Abbreviations), pp. 137155). There are also
two letters written before he became bishop of Rome: Letter 1, written by
him as deacon, and Letter 2 written while he was archdeacon (ed. Thiel,
pp. 127130). An additional three letters were addressed to Hilary: Letter
3 from Victorius (ed. Thiel, pp. 130137) and Letters 13 and 14 from the
bishops of Tarraconensis (ed. Thiel, pp. 155158). We exclude from the tally a
forgery of Vignier, namely Letter 5 from Leontius of Arles (ed. Thiel, pp. 138
139). A fragment of a genuine letter to Nicephorus is preserved in the acta
of the Synod of Pavia (866ce) (CPL 1663). Hilarys decretal to the East
confirmed the decisions of three ecumenical synods of Nicaea, Ephesus
and Chalcedon, and endorsed Leos Tome, which had been the object of
strong criticism by anti-Chalcedonians in the east, especially the monks of
Palestine, even in Leos lifetime.20
this text that Leo was already an archdeacon under Pope Celestine. In regard to this letter
the editors entertain two possibilities: Cyril addressed this letter to Leo, or Cyril actually
addressed his letter to Celestine, and Leo found it in the papal archive.
19 LP 1, p. 238.
20 See M.C. Pennacchio, EDP 1, s.v. Ilaro, pp. 442447.
218
appendix
Simplicius
Sedit 468483. Twenty letters survive in his collections, not including
another (Ep. 8), addressed to him by Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople.
All 21 are edited by Thiel, pp. 175214. The ground for the Acacian schism was
prepared during his pontificate, with the condemnation of Peter of Alexandria as a Eutychian heretic by Acacius.21
Felix III
Sedit 483492. Felix wrote sixteen surviving letters, plus a letter from a
Roman synod over which he presided (Ep. 11). These seventeen letters are
edited by Thiel, pp. 222277, along with the acta of the Roman synods of
487 and 488 (Ep. 13), which were promulgated in Felix name. A fragment
of Letter 8 to Emperor Zeno (CPL 1666) appears in a letter of the ninthcentury Pope Nicholas I (858867). Felix III was the first demonstrably
aristocratic bishop, from a Roman clerical family, and the great-grandfather
of Gregory I.22 The candidate of Basilius, head of the senatorial order,23 Felix
was also the first bishop of Rome to serve the new Ostrogothic regime, under
Kings Odoacer and Theoderic.
Gelasius
Sedit 492496. Gelasius 43 letters include one letter addressed to him by the
bishops of Dardania (Ep. 11), and are edited by Thiel, pp. 287483. Letter 15
is an epistolary formular. In addition, we have 49 fragments of other letters
(ed. Thiel, pp. 483510). Another 22 brief letters or fragments are included
in S. Lwenfeld, Epistolae pontificum Romanorum ineditae (Leipzig, 1895;
repr. Charleston, SC, 2010), pp. 112. Six lengthy tractates on various topics
also survive (ed. Thiel, pp. 510607), including the pagan feast of the Lupercalia. The sixth-century Gelasian Sacramentary was wrongly attributed to
him. 65 letters found in British manuscripts are listed by P. Ewald Die Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere
Deutsche Geschichtskunde zur Befrderung einer Gesammtausgabe der Quellenschriften Deutscher Geschichte des Mittelalters 5 (1880), pp. 503596, at
pp. 503526. Several new letters are edited there (Ep. 4; ed. Ewald, p. 510;
21
See M.C. Pennachio, EDP 1, s.v. Simplicio, pp. 449450.

See further R. Bratoz, EDP 1, s.v. Felice III, pp. 450457.
23 J. Richards, The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476752 (London, New
York, 1979), p. 235. Richards draws this deduction from the information on provenance
provided in LP.
22
219
part of Ep. 14, ed. Ewald, p. 514; Ep. 16; ed. Ewald, p. 515; Ep. 46 to Hereleuva;
ed. Ewald, pp. 521522).24
Anastasius II
Sedit 496498. Anastasius II wrote six surviving letters, including a Libellus (in the edition of Thiel, pp. 615637). No other works survive. The Acacian schism continued to plague the church, with Anastasius seeking a rapprochement with the East and the Roman clergy falling out of communion
with him as a consequence.25
Symmachus
Sedit 498514. Eighteen letters survive, plus three from Bishop Ennodius of
Pavia (Epp. 7, 9 and 18); one from King Sigismund (Ep. 17); a letter from the
eastern bishops (Ep. 12) and a Libellus by John the Deacon (Ep. 8). These
are edited by Thiel, pp. 641734. Symmachus election was contested by
supporters of the rival candidate, Laurentius, for most of his episcopate, and
for four years (502506) Laurentius occupied the papal throne, during which
time Rome was in a state of civil war.26
Hormisdas
Sedit 514523. Hormisdas penned 93 surviving letters, and we have in addition 31 addressed to Hormidas. These include five from Emperor Anastasius
(Epp. 1, 2, 10, 11 and 38); seven from Emperor Justin (Epp. 41, 42, 66, 101, 108, 116
and 145); Letter 117 from Empress Euphemia; Letter 3 from Bishop Dorotheus
of Thessalonica; Letter 21 from Bishop Avitus of Vienne; Letters 44, 68, 78, 89,
99, 114, 120, 132 and 135 from Justinian (variously described as comes, illustris
and consul); Letter 136 from Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople; Letter 148 from Dionysius Exiguus and various letters from aristocrats: Letter
69 from Pompeius, Letter 70 from Anastasia, Letters 71 and 119 from Juliana
Anicia and Letter 118 from illustris Celer. Appended to Letter 7 is Hormisdas
famous Libellus fidei (CPL 1684), a short document that all eastern bishops
were to subscribe if they wanted to be in communion with Rome.
24
On Gelasius life and times see R. Bratoz, EDP 1, s.v. Gelasio, pp. 458462.
See P. Bertolini, EDP 1, s.v. Anastasio II, pp. 462464. On Pope Anastasius role in this
schism see E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Abt. NF 10/4 (Munich, 1934),
pp. 3303, at pp. 227230.
26 See further T. Sardella, EDP 1, s.v. Simmacho, pp. 464473, esp. 470; T. Sardella, ibid., s.v.
Lorenzo, antipapa, pp. 473475; Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rome; and K. Sessa, Formation of
Papal Authority, p. 32, on the Symmachan Forgeries.
25
220
appendix
We have excluded from the tally another 26 letters in Hormisdas collection which were not authored by the pope, namely the relationes (Epp. 15,
39, 63, 67, 109, 115, 130, 146 and 147); Letter 16, a synodical letter or record
of the synod of Old Epirus; Letter 131, the record of a synod of Constantinople; Letter 12 from Emperor Anastasius to the Roman senate, and Letter 14,
a rescript of the Roman senate to Emperor Anastasius; Letters 59, 60, 61, 64,
65, 75, 76, 77, 98, 110, 111 and 115, exempla suggestionis of legates to Hormisdas; and Letter 102, an indiculus from Bishop John or Epiphanius, presbyter
of Thessalonica. Hormisdas letters have been edited by Thiel, pp. 741988.
No other works survive.27
Felix IV
Sedit 526530. Only one letter of Felix IV survives. It is addressed to Caesarius of Arles, edited by C. De Clercq, Concilia Galliae. A. 511A. 695, CCSL 148A
(Turnhout, 1963), pp. 5152. There is also extant a constitution (constitutum)
and a death-bed teaching (praeceptum). His four-year reign seems to have
been rather uneventful, especially when compared with that of his predecessor John I (523526), whose cooperation with Emperor Justin resulted
in his death at the hands of Theodoric in Ravenna. No letters survive from
Johns episcopate, with the exception of two forged letters in his name.28
Boniface II
Sedit 530532. As in the case of the previous pope, only one letter, addressed
to Caesarius of Arles, survives. It is also edited by C. De Clercq, CCSL 148A,
pp. 6669. No other works survive. Bonifaces election was contested by
Dioscorus, a Greek from Alexandria, who had been recommended as a
candidate for the patriarchate of Alexandria by Pope Hormisdas.29
John II
Sedit 532535. Neither his date nor place of birth is known, only that he came
from a Roman family, his father a certain Projectus (LP). He was a priest of
San Clemente, and has been identified with the deacon Mercurius, before he
adopted the name of John at his election. Only one letter, addressed to the
Roman senators, survives, and is edited in ACO 4/2, pp. 206210 (CPL 1692).
27
See T. Sardella, EDP 1, s.v. Ormisda, pp. 476483.

See Chapter 2, n. 82 above. See T. Sardella, EDP 1, s.v. Giovanni I, pp. 483487; J.M. Sansterre, ibid., s.v. Felice IV, pp. 487492.
29 See E. Bertolini, EDP 1, s.v. Bonifacio II, pp. 492495; ibid., Dioscoro, antipapa, pp. 495
499.
28
221
Three letters to Caesarius of Arles, the bishops of Gaul and the clergy of Riez
have been preserved in the Collectio Arelatensis (ed. C. Munier, CCSL 148,
pp. 4548) and the Concilia Galliae (ed. De Clercq, CCSL 148A, pp. 8689)
and one in the Collectio Avellana (ed. Guenther, CSEL 35, pp. 320328).30
Agapitus I
Sedit 535536. Only seven letters survive. Letters 14 are included in the Collectio Avellana (ed. Guenther, CSEL 35, pp. 330347), Letters 5 and 6 in the
Collectio Arelatensis (ed. Munier, CCSL 148, pp. 5457). The seventh is edited
by De Clercq in Concilia Galliae, CCSL 148A, pp. 9697. At the start of Justinians campaign against the Ostrogoths, the newly-elected Agapitus was
sent on an embassy to Constantinople, where he died. He was succeeded by
Hormisdas son Silverius, the choice of Theodahad, who was accused of conspiring with the Goths against Belisarius and deposed after just nine months
as bishop of Rome (536537). Silverius died in exile in December 537, and
unfortunately left no letters.31
Vigilius
Sedit 537555. Circa 16 letters survive, and are found in PL 69, 1568; plus a
letter about Theodore (CPL 1695); a judgement of Justinian; and a fragment
from the letter or Constitution about the Three Chapters.32 As archdeacon,
Vigilius was appointed by Belisarius to replace Pope Silverius (d. 537).33
Pelagius I
Sedit 556561. 96 letters are edited by P.M. Gass and C.M. Batlle, Pelagii I
Papae epistulae quae supersunt (556561), Scripta et Documenta 8 (Montserrat, 1956); 72 are preserved in Ewalds edition of the British Collections,
pp. 533562. Some of these are among the seventeen found in ed. Lwenfeld,
pp. 1221. Letter 5 to Sapaudus of Arles, and Letter 6 to Valerian the Patrician
are both edited by W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892), pp. 442446. The
archdeacon Pelagius had been the candidate of Narses, chosen to replace the
recalcitrant Vigilius. As a consequence, he was not accepted by the Roman
clergy or the nobility, and there were no bishops who would ordain him.
30
31
See M.C. Pennacchio, EDP 1, s.v. Giovanni II, pp. 499503.

See O. Bertolini, EDP 1, s.v. Agapito I, pp. 504508, C. Sotinel, ibid., s.v. Silverio, pp. 508
512.
32 On the notaries of Vigilius letters, see N. Ertl, Diktatoren frhmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe, Archiv fr Urkundenforschung NF 1/1 (1937), pp. 56132, at pp. 6770.
33 See C. Sotinel, EDP 1, s.v. Vigilio, pp. 512529.
222
appendix
Pelagius had to avow his innocence in public before the entire populace
and the plebs, before they would enter into communion with him.34 In
defensione Trium Capitulorum (CPL 1703), ed. R. Devreese, Studi e Testi 57
(Vatican City, 1932), probably composed while he was a deacon, acting as
apocrisiarius for his predecessor in Constantinople.35 The Latin translation
of the Apophthegmata Patrum by the deacons Pelagius and John has been
attributed to Pelagius I and John III (561575) by Petersen.36
Pelagius II
Sedit 579590. Pelagius sent six surviving letters. Four of these are preserved
in Gregory the Greats Registrum: one to Gregory the Deacon (edited by
L. Hartmann, MGH Epp. 2 [Berlin, 1899], pp. 440441), and there are three to
Elias of Aquileia and the other bishops of Istria (ibid., pp. 442467). These
four are also edited in ACO 4/5.2, pp. 105132. The remaining two are both
addressed to Aunarius of Autissiodorensis, and are edited by W. Gundlach,
MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892), pp. 448450.37
Other Western Authors
The Latin corpus consists of over 708 letters belonging to non-Roman bishops.38 The most substantial collections are those of Augustine, Paulinus,
Sidonius and Ruricius. The profiles of western non-Roman bishops and their
works are presented according to region and in chronological order.39
Africa
Aurelius of Carthage
Sedit 391/2 to 429/30. Four letters are extant Letter I (CPL 393) is edited by
C. Munier, Concilia Africae a. 345a. 525, CCSL 149 (Turnhout, 1974), pp. 156
161; Letter 2 (CPL 394) in ed. Munier, CCSL 149, pp. 169172; Letter 3 (CPL 395)
34
LP 1, p. 303. Cf. C. Sotinel, EDP 1, s.v. Pelagio I, pp. 529536.

Ertl, Diktatoren frhmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe, pp. 6870, asserts that the similarities between this work and Vigilius Constitutum indicate that Pelagius composed the latter
while deacon under Vigilius.
36 J. Petersen, The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in their Late Antique Cultural Background,
Studies and Texts 69 (Toronto, 1984).
37 See C. Sotinel, EDP 1, s.v. Pelagio II, pp. 541546.
38 This figure excludes the 297 letters of Ennodius, since it is impossible to differentiate
those that were produced during his episcopate from the rest. See Ennodius of Pavia below.
39 We acknowledge Stephen Lakes help with these profiles.
35
223
in PL 56, 495496; and Letter 4 (CPL 396) in ed. Munier, CCSL 149, pp. 2829.
There are fragmentary remains of some other works.
Augustine of Hippo Regius
Sedit 395430. There are two collections of letters: Letters 1270, and the 29
letters discovered in the 1980s (designated by an asterisk). We have used the
NBA edition for both: vol. 21/1 (Epp. 170), vol. 21/2 (Epp. 71123), vol. 22 (Epp.
124184A), vol. 23 (Epp. 185270), vol. 23A (Epp. 1*-29*). Translations used are
those by R. Teske in WSA, vols. II/1 (Epp. 199), II/2 (Epp. 100155), II/3 (Epp.
156210), and II/4 (Epp. 211270 and 1*-29*) (Hyde Park, NY, 2001, 2003, 2004,
2005).40
In the first collection of letters we find several sets of correspondence:
with Augustines friend Nebridius, with Paulinus of Nola and his wife Therasia, with Jerome, Evodius, Pascentius, Longinianus, Nectarius, Consentius,
Quodvultdeus and Darius. Within these sets we therefore find letters not
only by, but also to, Augustine. In addition, there are letters transmitted in
both collections that are written neither by nor to Augustine (Epp. 24, 32,
165, 181, 182, 201 and 27*). A great many pieces in the epistolary corpus can
be dated accurately.
The letters of Augustine were transmitted in various ways: individually;
in small collections with no order; arranged according to addressees; in
mediaeval thematic collections like penitentiaries if they were, for example,
concerned with the topic of church discipline; or in bulk.41 In the early 1980s
the c. 300 surviving letters of the bishop of Hippo, who died in 428, were
augmented by Johannes Divjaks discovery of another 29 pieces, most of
them dating from the last decade of Augustines episcopacy.42 The discovery
of new letters of Augustine is a good example of how our perceptions of
authors and their times can be skewed by the limited nature of what has
survived to us. Without the Divjak letters we would have remained unaware,
for example, of the systematic people-smuggling which was occurring in the
Mediterranean in the 420s against which Augustine took a strong stand.43
It can be assumed that Augustine had both a library and an archive at
his disposal, but the Vandal invasion of 429 must have put an end to much
40 See the exhaustive and authoritative article by J. Divjak, Epistulae, in ed. C. Mayer,
Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2 (Basel, 2003), cols. 8931057; also R.B. Eno, Epistulae, in ed.
A.D. Fitzgerald, Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), cols.
298310.
41 Divjak, Epistulae, 907.
42 Studied by various authors in Les lettres de saint Augustin.
43 Ep. 10*.7; discussed in Chapter 6 below.
224
appendix
of the archival material in Hippo Regius.44 Other works of this prolific writer
include a number of biblical commentaries, philosophical and moral works,
polemical writings against Manichees, Donatists, and Pelagians, and a large
corpus of sermons.
Capreolus of Carthage
Sedit 430437. From Capreolus work only four letters, one in fragmentary
form, survive (CPL 397400). The first is addressed to the Council of Ephesus
(ed. ACO 1/2, pp. 6465); the others can be found in PL 53, 847849; ed.
ACO 2/3.3 (Berlin, 1937), pp. vix.
Quodvultdeus of Carthage
Sedit 437454. Two letters of his to Augustine, preserved in the latters lettercollection (Epp. 221 and 223), survive (CPL 413a), as well as around twelve
sermons and a work entitled De promissionibus et praedictionibus Dei (CPL
413).
Fulgentius of Ruspe
Sedit c. 507532. Fulgentius is the author of some 18 letters, edited by J.
Fraipont, CCSL 91 and 91A (Turnhout, 1968). Other works include: Dicta regis
Trasamundi et contra ea responsionum liber unus; Ad Trasamundum libri tres.
Other non-extant works can be identified from his Vita.45
Born c. 467 in North African Thelepte (Byzacena) into a prominent family, he became procurator or tax collector at an early age but soon preferred the monastic life. Ordained priest c. 501, and bishop of Ruspe six
years laters, he was exiled with other Catholic bishops by the Arian Vandal king Thrasamund to Sardinia c. 508/9c. 516/17, but permitted to return
to Carthage to dispute with the king over Arianism, only to be sent into second exile on Sardinia c. 519523. Thereafter he resumed episcopal duties in
Ruspe until his death in 527 or 532.46
Longinus of Nubia
D. after 580. Three fragmentary letters (presumably written in Greek) are
extant in Syriac translation (CPG 72187220).
44
45
46
Divjak, Epistulae, 908.

Ed. J. Fraipont, CCSL 91 (Turnhout, 1968), pp. VIVII.
Fraipont, CCSL 91, p. VI, dates Fulgentius death to 527, not 532.
225
Italy (outside Rome)

Paulinus of Nola
Sedit c. 410431. As well as 51 letters (CPL 202), Paulinus also composed
poems.
The text is edited in CSEL 29; trans. P.G. Walsh, Letters of St. Paulinus of
Nola, vol. 1, Letters 122, and vol. 2, Letters 2351, ACW 35 and 36 (Westminster,
ML, London, 1967). Only three letters (Epp. 49, 50 and 51) can definitely be
said to date to his episcopate, and none of them contains information on
crisis or crisis management.
Peter Chrysologus
Bishop of Ravenna c. 425450. Only one letter survives (CPL 229), edited in
ACO 2/3.1, pp. 67 (Latin), ACO 2/1.2, pp. 4546 (Greek translation), and
in A. Olivar, Los sermones de san Pedro Crislogo. Estudio crtico, Scripta et
Documenta 13 (Montserrat, 1962), pp. 9091. A large number of sermons is
transmitted under his name but several are spurious (see CPL 227 and 228).
Julian of Eclanum
D. after 454. Five fragmentary letters survive (CPL 775), edited by L. De
Coninck, M.J. DHont in CCSL 88 (Turnhout, 1977), pp. 335340, 396398.
A notable opponent of Augustine, Julian refused to condemn Pelagianism.
He composed various dogmatic works as well as commentaries on the Song
of Songs prophets and the Book of Job.
Ennodius of Pavia
Sedit c. 514521. 297 letters (CPL 1487). Text in S. Gioanni, Ennode de Pavie.
Lettres. Tome I, livres I et II, Collection des Universits de France 383 (Paris,
2006); further volumes are in progress. Most of his letters pertain to his
period as deacon of Milan. The only evidence for much of his episcopate is
found in letters included in the Collectio Avellana. Ennodius also composed
miscellaneous works, speeches, poems, hymns, and epigrams: the texts are
edited by F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi opera, MGH AA 7 (Berlin, 1885). Ennodius served as secretary to Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, Symmachus, and
others. In 515 he took part in an embassy to Constantinople, representing
Symmachus in the Acacian schism. He was also part of a second embassy to
Emperor Anastasius in 517.
226
appendix
Gaul
Eucherius of Lyon
Sedit c. 428450. Two letters survive (CPL 491, 493), the second being an
ascetic tractate in letter form: ed. B. Krusch, MGH, scr. mer. 3 (Berlin, 1896),
pp. 3239, and PL 50, 711C726D. Apart from two exegetical works dedicated
to each of his sons, we have a Passio of the martyrs of Acaunum who perished
under Emperor Maximian, which is considered spurious by some (CPL 490).
Faustus of Riez
Fl. c. 455480. Twelve letters are attributed to him, of which at least two and
possibly four are spurious (CPL 963); edited by B. Krusch in MGH AA 8 (Epp.
15, 1518 and 20 are by Faustus), and more recently by M. Neri, Dio, lanima
e luomo. Lepistolario di Fausto di Riez (Rome, 2011). Born c. 410 presumably
in Britain, he entered Lrins as monk and was abbot from 433. Around 458
Faustus was elevated as bishop of Rhegium (Provence) but was later banned
by Arian Visigothic king Eurich (477485). He participated in various synods and is considered a leading representative of southern Gallic semiPelagianism. He died before 500.47 Other writings include De Spiritu sancto
(CPL 982); De gratia (CPL 961); De ratione fidei (CPL 964). All works including the letters are edited by A. Engelbrecht, Fausti Reiensis, praeter sermones
pseudo-Eusebianos, opera, accedunt Ruricii epistulae, CSEL 21 (Vienna, 1891).
Identification of authentic sermones remains disputed.
Remigius of Reims
Sedit c. 459533. Only four letters (CPL 1070) and two other works have survived from this extraordinarily long episcopate. Text edited by H. Rochais,
CCSL 117 (Turnhout, 1957), pp. 407413. In addition a poetical work and two
versions of his will are extant. It was Remigius who baptised Clovis.
Sidonius Apollinaris
Bishop of Clermont, consecrated 469/470; died c. 487. Author of 146 letters
(CPL 987), ed. and trans. W.B. Anderson, Loeb Classical Library 296, 420, 2
vols. (London and Cambridge, MA, 1936, 1965; repr. 1980, 1984); also in MGH
AA 8, and in A. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire: Pomes, Lettres, 3 vols. (Paris, 1960,
1970). There is one letter to Sidonius (Book 4.2) by Claudianus Mamertus,
priest of Vienne, author of the work De statu animae, which he dedicated
47
K.S. Frank, Lexikon des Mittelalters 4, cols. 320321.
227
to Sidonius. The letters collected in Books 17 were intentionally compiled

by Sidonius himself, but were probably redacted by their addressee Constantius of Lyon.48 Book 8 was added through the urging of the vir illustris
Petronius of Arles and Book 9 at the insistence of Firminus of the same city.49
In this intentional collection derogatory remarks have been excised, and the
fewer than 150 letters comprising the collection we have today must exclude
many others, especially those composed by Sidonius during his prefecture
in Rome, before his consecration as bishop of Clermont in c. 471. We also
have his own publication of 24 poems, among them three panegyrics (also
in ed. Anderson; CPL 986).
Ruricius of Limoges
Sedit c. 485c. 507/510. Ruricius penned 82 letters, arranged in two books by
Faustus of Riez, who included twelve letters addressed to Ruricius; edited
by B. Krusch, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887), pp. 299350.50 Recent translation are
found in R.W. Mathisen (trans.), Ruricius of Limoges and Friends. A Collection
of Letters from Visigothic Gaul, TTH 30 (Liverpool, 1999); and M. Neri (ed. and
trans.), Ruricio di Limoges. Lettere (Pisa, 2009).
The see of Limoges was held by generations of Ruricius family members,
but it had long been vacant under the rule of the Arian Visigothic king,
Eurich, after whose death in 485 Ruricius became bishop. He was born c. 440
into senatorial aristocracy in Aquitania or Auvergne, related to other leading
families; his son Ommatius was bishop of Tours (from 522) and his grandson,
Ruricius II, succeeded him as bishop of Limoges. He married a noblewoman,
Hiberia, before 468, and entered the clergy in 477. He undertook an active
building programme but was also influenced by Faustus of Riezs asceticism,
and was apparently sympathetic to semi-Pelagianism. Venantius Fortunatus
commemorated him in an epitaph (Carmen 4.5).51 No other known writings
are extant.
48 For the scholarly debate over the revision of this collection, see A. Cameron, The Last
Pagans of Rome (New York, 2011), pp. 421497.
49 See W.B. Anderson, ed., trans., Sidonius. Poems Letters III, Loeb Classical Library 296
(London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1936, repr. 1965), pp. lxlxiv; J. Harries, Sidonius Apollinaris and
the Fall of Rome AD 407485 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 4, 710.
50 Epp. 112 in Kruschs edition are those addressed to Ruricius.
51 M. Heinzelmann, Lexikon des Mittelalters 7, col. 1112; K.F. Stroheker, Der senatorische
Adel im sptantiken Gallien (Tbingen, 1948) nr. 327.
228
appendix
Alcimus Avitus of Vienne

Sedit c. 490518. 85 letters by Avitus survive; ed. R. Peiper, MGH AA 6/1
(Berlin, 1883), pp. 35103. A recent translation appears in D. Shanzer and
I. Woods (trans.), Avitus of Vienne. Letters and Selected Prose, TTH 38 (Liverpool, 2002). Avitus was born c. 460 into Auvergnaise senatorial aristocracy, and a relation of both Sidonius Apollinaris and the emperor Avitus
Eparchius. Raised to the episcopate in Vienne in Burgundy c. 490, then still
predominantly Arian, he maintained a close association with the Burgundian court. While he failed to convert Gundobad to the catholic faith, Sigismund, Gundobads successor, converted to orthodoxy under Avitus influence. Avitus co-chaired the first Burgundian council, the synod of paone in
517. His letters attest to a wide circle of correspondents in Gaul, Italy and the
East, and to his opposition to Eutychianism, Arianism and Pelagianism. He
supported Symmachus in the Laurentian schism and sought to resolve the
Acacian schism before his death in 518.52 His other writings include six books
of poems (De spiritalis historiae gestis); Contra Eutychianam haeresim libro
duo; Dialogorum cum Gundobado rege testimonia; Ex libris seu epistolis contra Arrianos fragmenta quae exstant; Ex libris contra phantasma fragmenta
and 31 or 34 homilies; of these last, only three are complete.
Caesarius of Arles
Sedit 502542. Six letters survive, most of them addressed to bishops of
Rome, plus fragments and one encyclical letter. These are edited by G. Morin
in CCSL 103 and 104 (Turnhout, 1953), and translated by W. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: Life, Testament, Letters, TTH 19 (Liverpool, 1994). In 536 control of the region passed to the catholic Franks, which was welcomed by
Caesarius. He chaired a series of synods: Agde (506), Arles (524), Carpentras
(527), Valence (528), Orange II (529), Vaison (529). At Orange II he formally
brought an end to semi-Pelagianism with the reassertion of Augustines
teaching on grace.53 Over 250 sermons survive. Other writings include Regula ad virgines; Regula ad monachos; and Testamentum, a commentary on
Revelation in sermon form.
Viventiolus of Lyon
C. 520. Only two letters are extant (CPL 10681069), ed. R. Peiper, MGH
AA 6/2 (Berlin, 1961), pp. 89, 165.
52
53
T. Zotz, Lexikon des Mittelalters 1, cols. 13071308.

G. Langgrtner, Lexikon des Mittelalters 2, cols. 13601362.
229
Mapinius of Reims
D. c. 550. Only two letters are extant (CPL 1062), ed. E. Dmmler, MGH Epp.
3 (Berlin, 1982; repr. Munich, 1978), pp. 126127, 129.
Nicetius of Trier
D. 566. Only two letters survive (CPL 1063), ed. Dmmler, MGH Epp. 3, p. 118.
Eutropius of Valence
Fl. c. 580. Only two letters survive (CPL 10951096) in PL 80, 9D20A.
Spain
Montanus of Toledo
Sedit 522531. Two letters are extant (CPL 1094) in PL 65, 51A60A.
Britain
Patrick of Ireland
D. 461. One letter to the soldiers of Coroticus and a fragment of another to the
bishops in Campo (of doubtful authenticity) survive (CPL 1099, 1103). The former, written against Coroticus, a British king who had ordered the killing of
recently baptized Christians, is edited by L. Bieler, Liber epistolarum sancti
Patricii episcopi, Classica et Mediaevalia 11 (1950), pp. 91102; and P.C. Hanson, ed., trans., SC 249 (Paris, 1978), pp. 134152. Both letters are translated in
J. Skinner, The Confession of St Patrick (London, 1998). In addition we have
an autobiographical work, the Confessio S. Patricii (CPL 1100).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum: see Abbreviations, ACO; ed., trans. N.P. Tanner,
Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols. (London, Washington, DC, 1990).
Agathias, Historiarum libri quinque, ed. R. Keydell, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 2 (Berlin, 1967); trans. J.D. Frendo, Agathias, The Histories, Corpus Fontium
Historiae Byzantinae 2A, Series Berolinensis (Berlin, New York, 1975).
Agnellus of Ravenna, Liber Pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (CPL 1182), ed. D.M.
Deliyannis, CCCM 199 (Turnhout, 2006); trans. D.M. Deliyannis, Agnellus of
Ravenna. The Book of Pontiffs of the Church of Ravenna (Washington, DC,
2004).
Ambrose, De officiis (CPL 144), ed., trans. I.J. Davidson, Ambrose. De officiis. Edited
with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford Early Christian Studies, 2 vols. (Oxford, 2002).
Anon., Ad Celantiam (CPL 745), ed. I. Hilberg, CSEL 29, pp. 329356; trans. B.R. Rees,
Pelagius. Life and Letters (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 127144.
Anon., De vera humilitate (CPL 529), ed., trans. M.K.C. Krabbe, Epistula ad Demetriadem de vera humilitate. A Critical Text and Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (Washington, DC, 1965).
Anon., Gesta de Xysti purgatione (CPL 1682), ed. E. Wirbelauer, Zwei Ppste in Rome.
Der Konflict zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498514), Studien und Texte
(Freiburg, 1993), pp. 262270.
Augustine of Hippo, De gestis Pelagii (CPL 348), NBA 17/2, pp. 21121.
, De moribus (CPL 261), NBA 13/1, pp. 114199.
, Enarrationes in Psalmos (CPL 283), NBA 25, 26, 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2.
, Epp. (CPL 262), NBA 21/1, 21/2, 22, 23, 23A; trans. R.B. Eno, Saint Augustine.
Letters Volume VI (1*29*), FOTC 81 (Washington, DC, 1989); trans. R. Teske,
WSA II/1 (Epp. 199), II/2 (Epp. 100155), II/3 (Epp. 156210), and II/4 (Epp. 211270
and 1*29*) (Hyde Park, NY, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005).
, Retractationes (CPL 250), NBA 2.
Aurelius of Carthage, Epp. (CPL 393396), PL 56, 495496 (= Ep. 3); ed. C. Munier,
Concilia Africae a. 345a. 525, CCSL 149 (Turnhout, 1974), pp. 2829 (= Ep. 4),
pp. 156161 (= Ep. 1), pp. 169172 (= Ep. 2).
Avitus of Vienne, Epp. (CPL 993), ed. R. Peiper, MGH AA 6/2 (Berlin, 1883), pp. 35
103; trans. D.R. Shanzer, I.N. Wood, Avitus of Vienne, Letters and Selected Prose,
TTH 38 (Liverpool, 2002).
Basil of Caesarea, Epp. (CPG 2900), ed. Y. Courtonne, Saint Basile. Correspondance,
3 vols. (Paris, 2003).
Boniface I of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1648), PL 20, 750784; ed. P. Coustant, Epistolae
Romanorum Pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a S. Clemente I usque ad
Innocentium III (Paris, 1721).
232
bibliography
Boniface II of Rome, Ep. (CPL 1691), ed. C. De Clercq, Concilia Galliae. A. 511A. 695,
CCSL 148A, pp. 6669.
Caesarius of Arles, Epp. (CPL 10101011), ed. G. Morin, S. Caesarii opera omnia, 2 vols.,
CCSL 103, 104 (Turnhout, 1953); trans. W.E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: Life,
Testament, Letters, TTH 19 (Liverpool, 1994).
Cassiodorus, Institutiones (CPL 906), PL 70, 11051150; ed. R. Mynors, Institutiones,
2nd ed. (Oxford, 1961).
Celestine I of Rome, Epp. (CPL 16501653), PL 50, 430558; Ep. ad Flavianum, episcopum Philippensem; ed. Schwartz, ACO 1/1.7, pp. 142143 (Greek); Frags. ed.
Schwartz, ACO 2.2/1, pp. 4142. Trans. F. Gori, Papa Celestino Epistolario, Collana
di Testi patristici 127 (Romen, 1996).
Cicero, Epp., ed., trans. D.R. Shackleton Bailey, Cicero. Letters to Atticus, Loeb Classical Library 7 (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1999; repr. 2006).
Codex encyclius, see Abbreviations, CEn.
Codex Justinianus, see Abbreviations, CJ.
Codex Theodosianus (CPL 1795), see Abbreviations, CTh. Trans. C. Pharr, The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions (Princeton, NJ, 1952).
CTh 16, ed. T. Mommsen, trans. J. Roug, intro. R. Delmaire, Code Thodosien. Livre
XVI, SC 497 (Paris, 2005).
Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431, ed. E. Schwartz, Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431: eine antichalkedonische Sammlung aus der Zeit Kaiser Zenos, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-philologische und historische
Klasse 32/6 (Munich, 1927).
Collectio Avellana (CPL 15701622), ed. O. Guenther, Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab anno CCCLXVII usque ad annum DLIII datae, Avellana quae
dicitur Collectio, CSEL 35, 2 vols. (Prague, 1895).
Collectio Sangermanensis, ACO 2/5 (Berlin, Leipzig, 1936).
Collectio Thessalonicensis (CPL 1623), ed. C. Silva Tarouca, Epistularum romanorum
pontificium ad vicarios per Illyricum aliosque episcopos. Collectio Thessalonicensis,
TDST 23 (Rome, 1937).
Collectio Veronensis (CPL 1624), ed. E. Schwartz, Publizistische Sammlungen zum
acacianischen Schisma, Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse Abteilung. Neue Folge 10/4 (Munich,
1934), pp. 3157.
Commodian, Instructiones divinae (CPL 1470), ed. J. Martin, CCSL 128 (Turnhout,
1960).
Concilia Africae, ed. C. Munier, Concilia Africae a. 345a. 525, CCSL 149 (Turnhout,
1974).
Concilia Galliae, ed. C. Munier, Concilia Galliae a. 314a. 506, CCSL 148 (Turnhout,
1963); ed. C. De Clercq, Concilia Galliae a. 511a. 695, CCSL 148A (Turnhout, 1963).
Council of Chalcedon (CPG 89459307), ed. Schwartz, ACO 2/2.12; ACO 2/3 and
ACO 2/4; trans. R. Price, M. Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Translated with an Introduction and Notes, 3 vols., TTH 45 (Liverpool, 2005).
Council of Constantinople II (CPG 94169442), ed. Straub, ACO 4/1; trans. R. Price,
The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with Related Texts on the Three
Chapters Controversy, 2 vols., TTH 51 (Liverpool, 2009).
Council of Ephesus I (CPG 54065409, 86208867), ed., trans. U. Brouriant, La
bibliography
233
Bibliothque du Der-Amba Shenoudi, 2. Actes du Concile dphse, Mmoires

publis par les membres de la Mission archologique franaise au Caire (Paris,
1892) (= Coptic text); ACO 1/1.
Council of Nicaea, Canones (CPG 8513), see Acta.
Cyril of Alexandria, Epp. (CPG 53015411), ACO 1/1, pp. 17; eds., trans. R.Y. Ebied,
L.R. Wickham, A Collection of Unpublished Syriac Letters of Cyril of Alexandria,
CSCO 359 (Louvain, 1975; text), CSCO 360 (Louvain, 1975; trans.); ed., trans.
L.R. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters, Oxford Early Christian Texts
(Oxford, 1983); trans. J.I. McEnerney, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Letters 150, Letters
51110, 2 vols., FOTC 76, 77 (Washington, DC, 1987); trans. J. McGuckin, Cyril
of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts,
Supplements to VC 23 (Leiden, 1994).
, Festal Letters (CPG 5240), PG 77, 401981; eds., trans. P. vieux et al., Cyrille
dAlexandrie. Lettres Festales, SC 372, 392, 434 (Paris, 1991, 1993, 1998); trans.
P.R. Amidon, intro. J.J. OKeefe, St. Cyril of Alexandria. Festal Letters 112, FOTC 118
(Washington, DC, 2009).
Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas: see Abbreviations, DM.
Ennodius of Pavia, Epp. (CPL 1487), ed. F. Vogel, Magni Felicis Ennodi opera, MGH
AA 7 (Berlin, 1885; repr. Munich, 1981); ed. S. Gioanni, Ennode de Pavie. Lettres.
Tome I, livres I et II, Collection des Universits de France 383 (Paris, 2006, 2010);
in progress.
, Vita Epiphanii (CPL 1494), ed. F. Vogel, MGH AA 7 (Berlin, 1885; repr. Munich,
1981); trans. R.J. Deferrari, Early Christian Biographies, FOTC 15 (Washington, DC,
1952), pp. 301351.
Eugippius, Vita Severini (CPL 678), ed., trans. P. Rgerat, Vie de saint Sverin, SC 374
(Paris, 1991).
Eusebius Gallicanus (CPL 966), eds. J. Leroy, F. Glorie, Collectio homiliarum. Sermones extravagantes (Eusebius Gallicanus), CCSL 101, AB, 3 vols. (Turnhout,
19701971).
Evagrius, HE (CPG 7500), eds. J. Bidez, L. Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History
of Evagrius with the Scholia (London, 1898; repr. Amsterdam, 1964); trans. A.J. Festugire, vagre. Histoire Ecclsiastique, Byzantion 45 (1975), pp. 187488;
trans. M. Whitby, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, TTH 33 (Liverpool, 2000).
Faustus of Riez, Epp. (CPL 963), ed. B. Krusch, Fausti aliorumque epistulae ad Ruricium aliosque, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887), pp. 265298; ed. A. Engelbrecht, Fausti
Reiensis, praeter sermones pseudo-Eusebianos, opera, accedunt Ruricii epistulae,
CSEL 21 (Vienna, 1891); ed. and trans. M. Neri, Dio, lanima e luomo. Lepistolario
di Fausto di Riez (Rome, 2011).
Felix III of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1665), ed. Thiel (see Abbreviations), pp. 222277.
Felix IV of Rome, Ep. ad Caesarium Arletensem (CPL 1686), ed. C. De Clercq, Concilia
Galliae. A. 511A. 695, CCSL 148A (Turnhout, 1963), pp. 5152.
Firmus of Caesarea, Epp. (CPG 6120), ed., trans. M.-A. Calvet-Sebasti, P.-L. Gatier,
Firmus de Csare. Lettres, SC 350 (Paris, 1989).
Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epp. (CPL 817), ed. J. Fraipont, Sancti Fulgentii espiscopi Ruspensis Opera, 2 vols., CCSL 9191A (Turnhout, 1968).
Gelasius I of Rome, Adversus Andromachum (CPL 1671), ed. G. Pomars, Lettre contre
les Lupercales et dix-huit messes du Sacramentaire Lonien, SC 65 (Paris, 1959).
234
bibliography
, Epp. (CPL 16671668), ed. P. Ewald, Die Papstbriefe der Brittischen Sammlung, Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft fr ltere Deutsche Geschichtskunde zur Befrderung einer Gesammtausgabe der Quellenschriften Deutscher Geschichte des Mittelalters 5 (1880), pp. 503596; ed. Thiel (see Abbreviations), pp. 287510; ed.
S. Lwenfeld, Epistolae pontificum Romanorum ineditae (Leipzig, 1895; repr.
Charleston, SC, 2010), pp. 112; trans. B. Neil, P. Allen, Letters of Gelasius I (492
496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of Rome, Adnotationes (Turnhout, forthcoming).
Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 21 (CPG 3010), ed., trans. J. Mossay, Gregoire de Nazianze. Discours 2023, SC 270 (Paris, 1980).
Gregory of Nyssa, Epp. (CPG 3167), ed. P. Maraval, Grgoire de Nysse. Lettres, introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et index, SC 363 (Paris, 1990); trans. A.M. Silvas, Gregory of Nyssa: The Letters, Supplements to VC 83 (Leiden, 2007).
Gregory I of Rome, Dialogi (CPL 1713), eds., trans. A. de Vog, P. Antin, S. Gregorii
Magni Dialogi, SC 251, 260, 265 (Paris, 19781980).
, Reg. (CPL 1714), ed. D. Norberg, Registrum epistularum Gregorii Magni, CCSL
140/140A (Turnhout, 1982); trans. J.C.R. Martyn, The Letters of Gregory the Great,
3 vols., Medieval Sources in Translation 40 (Toronto, 2004).
Gregory of Tours, Historia francorum (CPL 1023), eds. B. Krusch, W. Levison, MGH
SSRM 1/1 (Hannover, 1937).
Hormisdas of Rome, Epp. (CPL 16831684), ed. Thiel (see Abbreviations), pp. 741
988.
Innocent I of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1641), PL 20, 463608; ed. A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, 10 vols. (Rome, 1840), vol. 3, pp. 702704; ed., trans. G.D. Dunn, The Letters
of Innocent I (forthcoming).
John II of Rome, Ep. ad Senatores (CPL 1692), ACO 4/2, pp. 206210.
John Cassian, Opera (CPL 512514), ed. M. Petschenig, Iohannis Cassiani opera, 2
vols., CSEL 17 (Vienna, 2004).
John Chrysostom, Ep. II ad Innocentium (CPG 4403), PG 52, 535536.
John of Antioch, Ep. synodi Orientalium ad Theodosium et Valentinianum imp.aug.
(CPG 6323), ACO 1/1.5, pp. 124125.
John of Beith Aphthonia, Vita Severi (CPG 7527), ed., trans. M.-A. Kugener, Vie de
Svre, PO 2/3 (Paris, 1907).
John of Ephesus, HE, ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, Iohannis Ephesini Historiae Ecclesiasticae Pars Tertia, CSCO 105 (text), Scr. Syr. 54 (Louvain, Paris, 1935) pp. 191, 194197,
201202, 205206, 207; CSCO 106 (trans.), Scr. Syr. 55 (Louvain, 1936, repr. 1964).
Justinian, Novellae, eds. R. Schoell et al., Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 3, Novellae, 13th ed.
(Berlin, 1963).
Leo I of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1656), eds. P. and H. Ballerini, Sancti Leonis magni Romani
pontificis opera omnia post Paschasii Quesnelli recensionem, 3 vols. (Venice, 1753
1757); PL 54, 5931218; ACO 2/1 and 2/4; ed. C. Silva-Tarouca, S. Leonis Magni
Tomus ad Flavianum Episcopum Constantinopolitanum (Epistula XXVIII) additis
Testimoniis Patrum et eiusdem S. Leonis Magni Epistula ad Leonem I imperatorem
(Epistula CLXV), TDST 9 (Rome, 1932); S. Leonis Magni epistulae contra Eutychis haeresim, Pars prima: Epistulae quae Chalcedonensi concilio praemittuntur
(aa. 449451), TDST 15 (Rome, 1934); S. Leonis Magni epistulae contra Eutychis
haeresim, Pars secunda: Epistulae post Chalcedonense concilium missae (aa. 452
bibliography
235
458), TDST 20 (Rome, 1935); ed. H. Wurm, Epistula Decretalis S. Leonis Magni
Romani Pontificis, Apollinaris 12 (1939), pp. 7993; eds., trans. H. Schipper, J. van
Oort, St Leo the Great: Sermons and Letters Against the Manichaeans. Selected
Fragments, Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum Series Latina 1 (Turnhout, 2000); see
also Collectio Thessalonicensis. Selected trans. B. Neil, Leo the Great, The Early
Church Fathers (London, New York, 2009), passim.
, Sermones (CPL 1657), ed. A. Chavasse, Sancti Leonis magni Romani pontificis
tractatus septem et nonaginta, 2 vols., CCSL 138/138A (Turnhout, 1973); eds., trans.
Schipper, van Oort, Sermons and Letters Against the Manichaeans. Selected trans.
B. Neil, Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers (London, New York, 2009),
passim.
Libanius, Epp., ed., trans. A.F. Norman, Libanius. Autobiography and Selected Letters,
Loeb Classical Library 478, 2 vols. (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1992).
Liberatus of Carthage, Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum (CPL
865), ed. J. Garnier (Paris, 1675; repr. Piscataway, NJ, 2010).
Liber pontificalis (CPL 1568) (see Abbreviations, LP), trans. R. Davis, The Book of
Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety Roman
Bishops to AD 715, 2nd ed., TTH 6 (Liverpool, 2000).
Malalas, Chronographia (CPG 7511), ed. L. Dindorf, Malalas Chronographia (Bonn,
1831); trans. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, R. Scott, The Chronicle of John Malalas, Byzantina Australiensia 4 (Melbourne, 1986); ed. J. Thurn, Corpus Fontium Historiae
Byzantinae 35 (Berlin, New York, 2000).
Marcellinus, Chronicon (CPL 2270), ed. T. Mommsen, MGH AA 11 (Berlin, 1894);
trans. B. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus. A Translation and Commentary,
Byzantina Australiensia 7 (Sydney, 1995).
Michael the Syrian, Chronicon, ed., trans. J.-B. Chabot, Chronique de Michel le Syrien
Patriarche Jacobite dAntioche (11661199), 4 vols. (Paris, 18991901; repr. Brussels,
1963).
Nestorius, Bazaar of Heraclides (CPG 5751), ed. F. Nau, Le livre de Hraclide de Damas
(Paris, 1910).
, Epp. (CPG 56655682), ACO 1, passim.
Patricius of Ireland, Ep. ad milites Corotici (CPL 1099), ed. L. Bieler, Liber epistolarum sancti Patricii episcopi, Classica et Mediaevalia 11 (1950), pp. 91102; ed.
R.P.C. Hanson, Confession. Lettre Coroticus, SC 249 (Paris, 1978).
, Confessio (CPL 1100), ed. R.P.C. Hanson, Confession. Lettre Coroticus, SC 249
(Paris, 1978); trans. John Skinner, The Confession of St Patrick (London, 1998).
Paulinus of Nola, Epp. (CPL 202), ed. W. von Hartel, Pontii Metropii Paulini Nolani
opera, pars 1: Epistulae, CSEL 29 (Vienna, 1894), trans. P.G. Walsh, Letters of St.
Paulinus of Nola, vol. 1, Letters 122; vol. 2, Letters 2351, ACW 35, 36 (Westminster,
ML, London, 1967).
Pelagius I of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1698/1702), ed. W. Gundlach, MGH Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892),
pp. 442446 (= Epp. 56); eds. P.M. Gass, C.M. Batlle, Pelagii I Papae epistulae
quae supersunt (556561), Scripta et Documenta 8, (Montserrat, 1956).
, In defensione Trium Capitulorum (CPL 1703), ed. R. Devreesse, Pelagii diaconi
ecclesiae romanae in defensione Trium Capitulorum: texte latin du manucrit aurelianensis 73 (70), Studi e Testi 57 (Vatican City, 1932).
Pelagius II of Rome, Epp. (CPL 17051707), ed. L. Hartmann, MGH Epp. 2 (Berlin,
236
bibliography
1899), pp. 440467; ACO 4/5.2, pp. 105132 (= Epp. 14); ed. W. Gundlach, MGH
Epp. 3 (Berlin, 1892), pp. 448450.
Pelagius, Ep. ad Demetriadem (CPL 737), PL 30, 1545; trans. B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life
and Letters (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 2970.
Penitentiales, ed. L. Bieler, The Irish Penitentials (Dublin, 1963; repr. 1975).
Peter Chrysologus, Ep. (CPL 229), ACO 2/3.1, pp. 67 (Latin), ACO 2/1.2, pp. 4546
(Greek trans.); ed. A. Olivar, Los sermones de san Pedro Crislogo. Estudio crtico,
Scripta et Documenta 13 (Montserrat, 1962), pp. 9091.
Peter of Callinicum, Contra Tritheistas (CPG 7251), eds., R.Y. Ebied, L.R. Wickham,
A. Van Roey, Peter of Callinicum. Anti-Tritheist Dossier, Orientalia Lovaniensia
Analecta 10 (Leuven, 1981).
, Tractatus contra Damianum (CPG 7252), eds., trans. R.Y. Ebied, L.R. Wickham,
A. Van Roey, Petrus Callinicensis: Tractatus contra Damianum, 4 vols., CCSG 29,
32, 35, 54 (Turnhout, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004).
Philoxenus of Mabbug, Ep. ad monachos, ed., trans. A. de Halleux, Philoxne de
Mabbog, Lettre aux moines de Senoun, CSCO 231, Scr. Syr. 98, pp. 9394 (text);
CSCO 232, Scr. Syr. 99, pp. 7778 (trans.) (Louvain, 1963).
Photius, Bibliotheca (CPG 6908), ed. R. Henry, Photius Bibliothque, 9 vols. (Paris,
19591991; repr. 2003).
Pontianus of Africa, Ep. (CPL 864), PL 67, 995998; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of
Constantinople, vol. 1, pp. 111112.
Possidius of Calama, Vita sancti Augustini (CPL 358), ed. A.A.R. Bastiaensen, Possidius. Vita Augustini, in Vita di Cipriano. Vita di Ambrogio. Vita di Augustino, 4th ed.,
Vite dei Santi dal secolo III al secolo IV, vol. 3 (Milan, 1997), pp. 127241.
Priscillian of Avila, Opera (CPL 785787), ed., trans. M. Conti, Priscillian of Avila. The
Complete Works, Oxford Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 2010).
Procopius, Bella, ed. J. Haury, rev. ed. G. Wirth, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1963); ed., trans.
H.B. Dewing, Loeb Classical Library (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1935).
Prosper, Epitoma Chronicon edita primum a. CCCXXXIII continuata ad a. CCCCLV
(CPL 2257); ed. T. Mommsen, Chronicorum minorum saec. IVVII, MGH AA 9
(Berlin, 1892; repr. 1961).
Ps. Dionysius of Tel-Mahre; Chronicon, ed., trans. J.-B. Chabot as Incerti auctoris
Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, 12, CSCO Scr. Syr. 3/12, vols. 91,
104 (Louvain, 19271933); trans. W. Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre.
Chronicle (known also as the Chronicle of Zuqnin) Part III, TTH 22 (Liverpool,
1996).
Ps. Joshua the Stylite, Chronicon, ed., trans. J.-B. Chabot, In incerti auctoris Chronicon
pseudo-Dionysianum vulgo dictum, CSCO 91, Scr. Syr. 43 (text), 104, Scr. Syr. 53
(trans.) (Paris, Louvain, 1933); trans. F.R. Trombley, J.W. Watt, The Chronicle of
Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite, TTH 32 (Liverpool, 2000).
Ps. Pelagius, De divitiis (CPL 733), PL Supplementum 1, 13801418, trans. B.R. Rees,
Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge, 1998), pp. 174211.
Ps. Sulpicius Severus (CPL 479), ed. C. Lepelley, Trois documents mconnus sur
lhistoire sociale et religieuse de lAfrique romaine tardive, retrouvs parmi les
Spuria de Sulpice Svre, Antiquits africaines 25 (1989), pp. 235262.
Ps. Zachariah Rhetor, HE (CPG 6995), ed. E.W. Brooks, Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae rhetori vulgo adscripta, vol. 2, CSCO 84, Scr. Syr. 39 (text), 88, Scr. Syr. 42
bibliography
237
(trans.) (Louvain, 1921, 1965); ed. G. Greatrex, trans. R.R. Phoenix, C.B. Horn, with
contributions by S.P. Brock, W. Witakowski, The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah
Rhetor. Church and War in Late Antiquity, TTH 55 (Liverpool, 2011).
Remigius of Reims, Epp. (CPL 1070), ed. H. Rochais, CCSL 117 (Turnhout, 1957),
pp. 407413.
Ruricius of Limoges, Epp. (CPL 985), ed. B. Krusch, Fausti aliorumque epistulae ad
Ruricium aliosque, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887; repr. Munich, 1985), pp. 299350; ed.
A. Engelbrecht, Fausti Reiensis, praeter sermones pseudo-Eusebianos, opera, accedunt Ruricii epistulae, CSEL 21 (Vienna, 1891); trans. R.W. Mathisen, Ruricius of
Limoges and Friends: A Collection of Letters from Visigothic Gaul, TTH 30 (Liverpool, 1999); trans. M. Neri, Ruricio di Limoges. Lettere (Pisa, 2009).
Salvian of Marseille, Ad ecclesiam sive adversus avaritiam (CPL 487), SC 176, pp. 138
344.
Severus of Antioch, Contra impium Grammaticum (CPG 7024), ed., trans. J. Lebon,
Severi Antiocheni liber contra impium Grammaticum, CSCO 93 (text), 94 (trans.)
(Louvain 1933); CSCO 101 (text), 102 (trans.) (Louvain, 1938).
, Epistula Synodica (CPG 7070.8), in DM, ed., trans. J.-B. Chabot, CSCO 17 (text)
(Louvain, 1908), pp. 1224; 103 (trans.) (Louvain, 1933), pp. 622.
, Epp. (CPG 7070), ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus Patriarch of Antioch in the Syriac Version of Athanasius of Nisibis, 2 vols (Oxford, London, 19021903; repr. Westmead, Hants, 1969); ed., trans.
E.W. Brooks, A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch, text and trans. in PO 12/2
(Paris, 1915; rev. ed. Turnhout, 1973), PO 14/1 (Paris, 1920); Epistulae mutuae, ed.,
trans. J. Lebon, CSCO 119 (text) and 120 (trans.) (Louvain, 1949); Epistulae tres
ad Julianum, ed., trans. R. Hespel, Svre dAntioche. La polmique antijulianiste,
3 vols, text and trans. CSCO 244/245, 295/296, 301/302, 318/319 (Louvain, 1964,
19681969, 1971); ed., trans. I.R. Torrance, Christology after Chalcedon: Severus of
Antioch and Sergius the Monophysite (Norwich, 1988); repr. as The Correspondence of Severus and Sergius, Texts from Christian Late Antiquity 11 (Piscataway,
NJ, 2011).
, Hymni (CPG 7072), ed., trans. E.W. Brooks, The Hymns of Severus and Others
in the Syriac Version of Paul of Edessa as Revised by James of Edessa, PO 6/1 (Paris,
1909), pp. 1179, and 7/5 (Paris, 1911; 2nd ed. Turnhout, 1981), pp. 593802.
Sidonius Apollinaris, Epp. (CPL 987), ed. C. Luetjohann, MGH AA 8 (Berlin, 1887);
ed., trans. A. Loyen, Sidoine Apollinaire: Pomes, Lettres, 3 vols. (Paris, 1960, 1970);
trans. W.B. Anderson, Sidonius: Poems and Letters, Loeb Classical Library 296,
420, 2 vols. (London, UK, Cambridge, MA, 1936, 1965; repr. 1980, 1984); J.A. van
Waarden, Writing to Survive. A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters Book
7, vol. 1: The Episcopal Letters 111, LAHR 2 (Leuven, 2010).
Simplicius of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1664), ed. Thiel (see Abbreviations), pp. 175214.
Sixtus III of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1655), ACO 1/1.7, pp. 143145.
Socrates Scholasticus, HE (CPG 6028), ed. G.C. Hansen, Sokrates: Kirchengeschichte,
GCS NF 1 (Berlin, 1995); eds. G.C. Hansen, C. Gnther, P. Maraval, Socrates,
Histoire ecclsiastique Livre VII, SC 506 (Paris, 2007).
Sozomen, HE (CPG 6030), eds. J. Bidez, G.C. Hansen, trans. A.-J. Festugire, B. Grillet,
Histoire ecclsiastique. Livres VIIIX, Sozomne, SC 516 (Paris, 2008).
Symmachus of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1678), ed. Thiel (see Abbreviations), pp. 641734.
238
bibliography
Synesius of Cyrene, Epp. (CPG 5640), ed. A. Garzya, trans. D. Roques, Synsios de
Cyrne. Correspondance, 3 vols. (Paris, 2000); trans. A. Fitzgerald, The Letters of
Synesius of Cyrene (London, 1926).
Synod of Milan, Epistula clericorum Mediolanensium ad legatos Francorum, qui Constantinopolim proficiscebatur (CPL 1697), ed. E. Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Abteilung 1940/2 (Munich, 1940), pp. 1825, trans. Price, Acts of the Council
of Constantinople, pp. 165170.
Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Epp. (CPG 62396278), ACO 4/3.1, pp. 440446; ed., trans.
Y. Azma, Thodoret de Cyr. Correspondance, 4 vols., SC 40bis, 98, 111, 429 (Paris,
19641998).
Theophanes Confessor, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, Theophanis Chronographia, 2
vols. (Leipzig, 1885; repr. Hildesheim, 1980); trans. C. Mango, R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes the Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284813
(Oxford, 1997).
Theophilus of Alexandria, Epp. (CPG 25802615), ed. I. Hilberg, CSEL 55 (Vienna,
1996); trans. N. Russell, Theophilus of Alexandria, The Early Church Fathers (London, New York, 2007).
Timothy Aelurus, Epp. (CPG 54765485), eds. R.Y. Ebied, L.R. Wickham, A Collection of Unpublished Letters of Timothy Aelurus, JTS ns 21 (1970), pp. 321369.
Valentinian III, imp. Novellae: see CTh.
Vigilius of Rome, Epp. (CPL 16941695), PL 69, 1568; ed. E. Schwartz, Vigiliusbriefe,
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, PhilosophischHistorische Abteilung 1940/2 (Munich, 1940), pp. 125.
, Constitutum I (CPL 1694), ed. O. Guenther, Epistolae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur
collectio, CSEL 35 (Prague, 1895), pp. 230320; trans. Price, Acts of the Council of
Constantinople, vol. 2, pp. 145218.
, Constitutum II (CPL 1696), also known as Aetius, ACO 4/2, pp. 138168; trans.
Price, Acts of the Council of Constantinople, vol. 2, pp. 221269.
, Scandala (CPL 1694), ed. ACO 4/1, pp. 245247; trans. Price, Acts of the Council
of Constantinople, vol. 2, pp. 215218.
Vita Caesarii Arelatensis (CPL 1018), ed. G. Morin, trans. M.-J. Delage, SC 536 (Paris,
2010).
Vita Fulgentii (CPL 847), ed. G.-G. Lapeyre, Vie de Saint Fulgence de Ruspe de Ferrand, diacre de Carthage (Paris, 1929); trans. R.B. Eno, Fulgentius. Selected Works,
FOTC 95 (Washington, DC, 1997).
Vita Melaniae Junioris, ed. D. Gorce, Vie de Sainte Mlanie: texte grec, introduction,
traduction et notes, SC 90 (Paris, 1962).
Vita Symeoni (CPG 7369), ed., trans. P. Van den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Symon
Stylite le Jeune (521592), 2 vols., Subsidia Hagiographica 32 (Brussels, 19621970).
Zosimus, Historia nova, ed. F. Paschoud, Zosime. Histoire nouvelle, 3 vols., Collection
des Universits de France (Paris, 20002003).
Zosimus of Rome, Epp. (CPL 1644), PL 20, 642686.
, Tractoria (CPL 1645), PL 20, 693695.
bibliography
239
Anthologies
Trapp, M.B. (trans., comm.), Greek and Latin Letters. An Anthology, with Translation,
Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics (Cambridge, New York, 2003).
Van Roey, A., Allen, P. (eds., trans. and comm.) (CPG 7070.8, 71347147, 71707196,
72037206), Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 56 (Leuven, 1994).
Secondary Literature
Aldrete, G.S., Floods of the Tiber in Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 2007).
Alfldy, G., Historisches Bewutsein whrend der Krise des 3. Jahrhunderts, in
Krisen in der Antike. Bewutsein und Bewltigung, Bochumer Historische Studien
13 (Dsseldorf, 1975), pp. 112132.
Allen, P., Christian Correspondences: The Secrets of Letter-writers and Letterbearers, in eds. H. Baltussen, P. Davis, Parrhesia, Censorship, and the Art of Veiled
Speech (Leiden, forthcoming).
, Stage-Managing Crisis: Bishops Liturgical Responses to Crisis (4th6th
Centuries), in eds. Sim, Allen, Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts, pp. 159172.
, Neil, B., The Poor in Psalms: Augustines Discourse on Poverty in Enarrationes in Psalmos, in eds. C. Harrison, A. Casiday, A. Andreopoulos, Meditations of
the Heart. Essays in Honour of Andrew Louth, Studia Theologiae Traditionis (Turnhout, 2011), pp. 181204.
, Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century, in eds. J. Leemans,
P. Van Nuffelen, S.W.J. Keough, C. Nicolaye, Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity,
Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119 (Berlin, Boston, 2011), pp. 2338.
, Brushes with the Imperium: Letters of Synesius of Cyrene and Augustine of
Hippo on Crisis, in eds. G. Nathan, L. Garland, Basileia: Essays on Imperium and
Culture in Honour of E.M. and M.J. Jeffreys, Byzantina Australiensia 17 (Brisbane,
2011), pp. 4553.
, Cyril of Alexandrias Festal Letters. The Politics of Religion, in eds. D. Luckensmeyer, P. Allen, Studies of Religion and Politics in the Early Christian Centuries,
Early Christian Studies 13 (Strathfield, 2010), pp. 195210.
, How to Study Episcopal Letter-Writing in Late Antiquity: An Overview of
Published Work on the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, in eds. V. Baranov, K. Demura,
B. Louri, Scrinium. Revue de patrologie, dhagiographie critique et dhistoire ecclsiastique 6 (Piscataway, 2010), pp. 130142.
, Neil, B., Mayer, W., Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity, see Abbreviations.
, Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-Century Heresy. The Synodical Letter
and Other Documents. Introduction, Texts, Translations, and Commentary, Oxford
Early Christian Texts (Oxford, 2009).
, Hayward, C.T.R., Severus of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers (London, New
York, 2004).
, The Syrian Church Through Bishops Eyes: The Letters of Theodoret of
Cyrrhus and Severus of Antioch, StP 42 (2006), pp. 321.
, The Horizons of a Bishops World: The Letters of Augustine of Hippo, in eds.
240
bibliography
W. Mayer, P. Allen, L. Cross, Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, vol. 4, The
Spiritual Life (Strathfield, 2006), pp. 327337.
, Its in the Post: Techniques and Difficulties of Letter-Writing in Antiquity with regard to Augustine of Hippo, A.D. Trendall Memorial Lecture 2005,
The Australian Academy of the Humanities, Proceedings 2005 (Canberra, 2006),
pp. 111129.
, The Definition and Enforcement of Orthodoxy, in eds. Av. Cameron, B.
Ward-Perkins, M. Whitby, The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 14. Late Antiquity:
Empire and Successors, A.D. 425600 (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 811834.
, Jeffreys, E., eds., The Sixth Century. End or Beginning?, Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane, 1996).
, Severus of Antioch and Pastoral Care, in eds. P. Allen, W. Mayer, L. Cross,
Prayer and Sprituality in the Early Church, vol. 2 (Brisbane, 1999), pp. 387400
, Evagrius Scholasticus the Church Historian, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense,
tudes et Documents 41 (Leuven, 1981).
Alpi, F., Svre dAntioche et la lgislation ecclsiastique de Justinien, Parole de
lOrient (forthcoming).
, La route royale. Svre dAntioche et les glises dOrient (512518), Bibliothque archologique et historique 188 (Beirut, 2009), vol. 1. Texte, vol. 2, Sources
et documents.
Amory, P., People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489554, Cambridge Studies in
Medieval Life and Thought (Cambridge, 1997).
Andreau, J., La lettre 7* sur les mtiers banciares, in Les lettres de saint Augustin,
pp. 165176.
Ashbrook Harvey, S., Asceticism and Society in Crisis: John of Ephesus and the Lives
of the Eastern Saints, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 18 (Berkeley,
1990).
Banev, K., Pastoral Polemics. A Rhetorical Analysis of Theophilus of Alexandrias
Letters in the First Origenist Controversy, DPhil diss. Cambridge, 2007.
Barclift, P.L., The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Greats Christological Vocabulary,
Church History 66/2 (1997), pp. 221239.
Bark, W. The Doctrinal Interests of Marius Mercator, Church History 12/3 (1943),
pp. 210216.
Batiffol, P., Les prsents de saint Cyrille la cour de Constantinople, tudes de
liturgie et darchologie chrtienne (Paris, 1919), pp. 154179.
Bautz, F.W., Gelasius I, Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon 2 (Hamm,
1990), pp. 197199.
Bethune-Baker, J.F., The Date of the Death of Nestorius: Shenoute, Zacharias, Evagrius, JTS 9 (1908), pp. 601605.
Bevan, G.A., The Case of Nestorius: Ecclesiastical Politics in the East, 428451CE,
DPhil. diss., Toronto, 2005.
Bianchi, U., Some Reflections on the Greek Origins of Gnostic Ontology, and the
Christian Origin of the Gnostic Saviour, in eds. A. Logan, A.J.M. Wedderburn,
New Testament and Gnosis. Essays in Honour of Robert McLachlan Wilson (London, New York, 1983), pp. 3845.
Blaudeau, P., ed., Exil et relgation: les tribulations du sage et du saint durant lantiquit romaine et chrtienne (I erVI e sicle ap. J.-C.), Actes du colloque organis par
bibliography
241
le Centre Jean-Charles Picard, Universit de Paris XII-Val-de-Marne, 1718 juin

2005 (Paris, 2008).
, Quand les papes parlent dexil: laffirmation dune conception pontificale
de la peine dloignement durant la controverse monophysite (449523), in ed.
Blaudeau, Exil et relgation, pp. 273308.
, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451491). De lhistoire la go-ecclsiologie,
Bibliothque des coles franaises dAthnes et de Rome 327 (Rome, 2006).
, Rome contre Alexandrie? Linterprtation pontificale de lenjeu monophysite (de lmergence de la controverse eutychienne au schisme acacien 448
484), Adamantius 12 (2006), pp. 140216.
, Timothe Aelure et la direction ecclsiale de lEmpire post-chalcdonien,
Revue des tudes byzantines 54 (1996), pp. 107133.
Blum, G.G., Rabbula von Edessa, der Christ, der Bischof, der Theologe, CSCO, Subsidia
34 (Louvain, 1969).
Bradley, K.R., Discovering the Roman Family. Studies in Roman Social History (New
York, Oxford, 1991).
Brandes, W., Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth CenturiesDifferent
Sources, Different Histories?, in eds. G.P. Brogiolo, B. Ward-Perkins, The Idea
and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, The
Transformation of the Roman World 4 (Leiden, 1999), pp. 2557.
, Anastasios ho dikoros: Endzeiterwartung und Kaiserkritik in Byzanz um 500
n. Chr., Byzantinische Zeitschrift 90 (1997), pp. 2464.
Brock, S.P., The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532),
Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 (1981), pp. 87121.
, Some New Letters of the Patriarch Severos, StP 12, Texte und Untersuchungen 115 (Berlin, 1975), pp. 1724.
Brok, M.F.A., propos des lettres festales, VC 5 (1951), pp. 101110.
Brooks, E.W., The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of 575,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1930), pp. 468476.
Brown, P.R.L., Augustine and a Crisis of Wealth in Late Antiquity, The Saint Augustine Lecture 2004, Augustinian Studies 36 (2005), pp. 530.
, Poverty and Leadership, see Abbreviations.
Bundy, D.D., Jacob Baradaeus. The State of Research, a Review of Sources and a New
Approach, Le Muson 91 (1978), pp. 4586.
Burris, C., Van Rompay, L., Some Further Notes on Thecla in Syriac Christianity, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 6/2 (2003), pp. 337342, online at:
http://www.bethmardutho.org/index.php/hugoye/volume-index/155.html
(accessed 30 June, 2012).
Cameron, A., The Last Pagans of Rome (New York, 2011).
Cameron, Av., Remaking the Past, in eds. G. Bowersock, P. Brown, O. Grabar, Late
Antiquity. A Guide to the Postclassical World (Cambridge, MA, 1999), pp. 120.
, The Perception of Crisis, Settimane di studio del centro italiana sulalto
medioevo 45 (1998), pp. 931.
Camplani, A., Martin, A., Lettres festales et listes piscopales dans lglise dAlexandrie et dgypte. propos de la liste piscopale accompagnant la premire
lettre festale de Cyrille dAlexandrie conserve en copte, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 30 (2000), pp. 720.
242
bibliography
Camplani, A., Filoramo, G., Foundations of Power and Conflicts of Authority in LateAntique Monasticism, Orientalia Periodica Lovaniensia (Leuven, 2007).
Caner, D., Wandering, Begging Monks. Spiritual Authority and the Promotion of Monasticism in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA, 2002).
Casson, L., Travel in the Ancient World, 2nd ed. (Baltimore, 1994).
Chadwick, H., The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great,
Oxford History of the Christian Church (Oxford, 2001).
, Priscillian of Avila: the Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford,
1976).
, The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council
of Chalcedon, JTS 6 (1955), pp. 1734.
Charanis, P., Church and State in the Later Roman Empire. The Religious Policy of
Anastasius I (491518), 11, 2nd ed. (Thessalonica,
1974).
Chazelle, C., Cubitt C., eds., The Crisis of the Oikoumene. The Three Chapters and
the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, Studies in the Early
Middle Ages 14 (Turnhout, 2007).
Cimma, M.R., LEpiscopalis Audientia nelle costituzioni imperiali da Constantino a
Giustiniano (Turin, 1989).
Claassen, J.-M., Displaced Persons. The Literature of Exile from Cicero to Boethius
(Madison, WI, 1999).
Comparetti, D., Iscrizione cristiana di Cirene, Annuario della Scuola Archeologica
Italiana di Atene e delle Missioni in Oriente 1 (1914), pp. 161167.
Conring, N., Hieronymus als Briefschreiber. Ein Beitrag zur sptantiken Epistolographie, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum/Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 8 (Tbingen, 2001).
Constable, G., Letters and Letter-Collections, Typologie des Sources du Moyen ge
Occidental, fasc. 17 (Turnhout, 1976).
Cooper, K., Christianity, Private Power and the Law from Decius to Constantine: A
Minimalist View, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 329343.
, Hillner, J., eds., Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300
900 (Cambridge, 2007).
, Poverty, Obligation and Inheritance: Roman Heiresses and the Varieties of
Senatorial Christianity in Fifth-Century Rome, in eds. Cooper, Hillner, Religion,
Cotton, H., Documentary Letters of Recommendation in Latin from the Roman Empire,
Beitrge zur klassischen Philologie 132 (Knigstein/Ts, 1991).
Coustant, P., ed., Epistolae Romanorum Pontificum et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a
S. Clemente I usque ad Innocentium III (Paris, 1721).
Cracco Ruggini, L., Vir sanctus: il vescovo e il suo pubblico ufficio sacro nella
citt, in eds. . Rebillard, C. Sotinel, Lvque dans la cit du IV e au V e sicle: image
et autorit, Collection de lcole franaise de Rome 248 (Rome, 1998), pp. 315.
Croke, B., Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes and Their Liturgical Commemoration,
Byzantion 51 (1981), pp. 122147.
de Halleux, A., Philoxne de Mabbog. Sa vie, ses crits, sa thologie (Louvain, 1963).
Delmaire, R., Les lettres de Jean Chrysostome. Esprances et dsillusions dun
vque en exil, in eds. R. Delmaire, J. Desmulliez, P.-L. Gatier, Correspondances.
bibliography
243
Documents pour lhistoire de lantiquit tardive, Actes du colloque international

Universit Charles-de-Gaulle-Lille 3, 2022 novembre 2003, Collection de la Maison de lOrient et de la Mditerrane 40, srie littraire et philosophique 13 (Lyon,
2009), pp. 283291.
, Exile, relgation, dportation dans la lgislation du Bas-Empire, in ed.
Blaudeau, Exil et relgation, pp. 115132.
, Les lettres dexil de Jean Chrysostome. tudes de chronologie et de prosopographie, Recherches Augustiniennes 25 (1991), pp. 71180.
de Ligt, L., Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire. Economic and Social Aspects of
Periodic Trade in a Pre-Industrial Society (Amsterdam, 1993).
dellOsso, C., Cristo e Logos. Il Chalcedonismo del VI secolo in Oriente, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 118 (Rome, 2010).
Demacopoulos, G., Gregory the Great and the Appeal to Petrine Authority, StP 48
(2010), pp. 333348.
Descotes, P., Saint Augustin et la crise plagienne, Rvue dtudes augustiniennes
et patristiques 56 (2010), pp. 197227.
, Les lettres-traits dAugustin et la controverse Plagienne, in eds. J. Desmulliez, C. Hot-van Cauwenberghe, J.-C. Jolivet, Ltude des correspondances dans
le monde romain: De lAntiquit classique lAntiquit tardive: permanences et
mutations, Actes du XXXe Colloque international de Lille, 2022 novembre 2008
(Villeneuve-dAscq, 2010), pp. 429447.
De Vinne, M.J., The Advocacy of Empty Bellies: Episcopal Representation of the
Poor in the Late Empire, D.Phil. diss., Stanford University, 1995.
Dey, H., Goodman-Tchernov, B., Tsunamis and the Port of Caesarea Maritima over
the Longue Dure: A Geoarchaeological Perspective, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23 (2010), pp. 265284.
Di Berardino, A., La dfence du pauvre. Saint Augustin et lusure, in eds. P.-Y. Fux,
J.-M. Roessli, O. Wermelinger, Saint Augustin: Africanit et universalit. Actes du
colloque international Alger-Annaba, 17 avril 2002, Augustinus Afer, Paradosis
45, 2 vols. (Fribourg, Switzerland, 2003), pp. 257263.
Di Paola, L., Viaggi, trasporti e istituzioni: studi sul cursus publicus, Pelorias 5 (Messina, 1999).
Diekamp, F. Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten im sechsten Jahrhundert und das fnfte
allgemeine Concil (Mnster, 1899).
Diesner, H.-J., Fulgentius von Ruspe als Theologe und Kirchenpolitiker, Arbeiten zur
Theologie (Stuttgart, 1966).
Dirks, R., Social Responses during Severe Food Shortages and Famine, Current
Anthropology 21 (1980), pp. 2144.
Divjak, J., Epistulae, in ed. C. Mayer, Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 2 (Basel, 2003), cols.
8931057.
, Zur Struktur Augustinischer Briefcorpora, in Les lettres de saint Augustin,
pp. 1327.
Dossey, L., Judicial Violence and the Ecclesiastical Courts in Late Antique North
Africa, in ed. Mathisen, Law, Society and Authority, pp. 98114.
Downey, G., Earthquakes at Constantinople and Vicinity, A.D. 3241454, Speculum
30 (1955), pp. 596600.
, A History of Antioch from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton, 1961).
244
bibliography
Draguet, R., Julien dHalicarnasse et sa controverse avec Svre dAntioche sur lincorruptibilit du corps du Christ (Louvain, 1924).
Ducloux, A., Ad ecclesiam confugere. Naissance du droit dasile dans les glises (IV e
milieu du V e s.), De larchologie histoire (Paris, 1994).
Dunn, G.D., The Letters of Innocent I (forthcoming).
, ed., The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity (Aldershot, forthcoming).
, Innocent Is Letter to Lawrence: Photinians, Bonosians, and the Defensores
Ecclesiae, JTS ns 63 (2012), pp. 136155.
, The Care of the Poor in Rome and Alarics Sieges, in eds. G.D. Dunn,
D. Luckensmeyer, L. Cross, Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church, vol. 5:
Poverty and Riches (Strathfield, 2009), pp. 319333
, The Validity of Marriage in Cases of Captivity: The Letter of Innocent I to
Probus, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis 83 (2007), pp. 107121.
, Anastasius I and Innocent I: Reconsidering the Evidence of Jerome, VC 61
(2007), pp. 3041.
Dupont, A., Augustines Recourse to 1Jn 1,8 Revisited. The Polemical Roots of an
Anti-Pelagian Stronghold, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 46 (2011), pp. 71
90.
Durliat, J., De la ville antique la ville byzantine. Le problme des subsistances, Collection de l cole franaise de Rome 136 (Rome, 1990).
, La peste du VIe sicle. Pour un nouvel examen des sources byzantines, in ed.
C. Abadie-Reynal, Hommes et richesses dans lempire Byzantin I (IV eVII e sicles),
Ralits byzantines (Paris, 1989), pp. 107119.
Ebbeler, J., Tradition, Innovation, and Epistolary mores, in ed. P. Rousseau, A Companion to Late Antiquity, Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World (Chichester, 2009), pp. 270284.
Ebied, R.Y., Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship, in ed. R.H. Fisher, A Tribute to Arthus Vbus: Studies in Early Christian
Literature and its Environment (Chicago, 1977), pp. 277282.
EDP, see Abbreviations.
Ekonomou, A.J., Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome
and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, 590752 A.D. (Lanham, MD,
2007).
Ellis, L., Kidner, F.L., eds., Travel, Communication and Geography in Late Antiquity.
Sacred and Profane (Aldershot, Burlington, VT, 2004).
Elm, E., Die Macht der Weisheit: Das Bild des Bischofs in der Vita Augustini des Possidius und anderen sptantiken und frhmittelalterlichen Bischofsviten, Studies in
the History of Christian Thought 109 (Leiden, 2003).
Eno, R.B., Papal Damage Control in the Aftermath of the Three Chapters Controversy, StP 19 (1989), pp. 5256.
, Epistulae, in ed. A.D. Fitzgerald, Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), cols. 298310.
Ertl, N., Diktatoren frhmittelalterlicher Papstbriefe, Archiv fr Urkundenforschung NF 1/1 (1937), pp. 56132.
Fahrquarson, P., Byzantium, Planet Earth and the Solar System, in eds. P. Allen,
E. Jeffreys, The Sixth Century. End or Beginning?, Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane, 1996), pp. 262269.
bibliography
245
Favale, A. Teofilo dAlessandria (345 c.412). Scritti, Vita e Dottrina, Biblioteca del
Salesianum 41 (Turin, 1958).
Fedalto, G., Hierarchia Ecclesiastica Orientalis, vol. 2, Patriarchatus Alexandrinus,
Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus (Padua, 1988).
Finn R.D., Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire. Christian Promotion and Practice
(313450) (Oxford, 2006).
Fitzgerald, A.D., ed., Augustine through the Ages. An Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids,
MI, 1999).
, Mercy, Works of Mercy, in ed. A.D. Fitzgerald, Augustine through the Ages.
An Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids, MI, 1999), pp. 557561.
Folliet, G., Le dossier de laffaire Classicianus (Epistulae 250 and 1*), in Les lettres
de saint Augustin, pp. 129146.
Frakes, R.M., Contra potentium iniurias: The Defensor Civitatis and Late Roman Justice, Mnchener Beitrge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte
90 (Munich, 2001).
Frend, W.H.C., Fussala: Augustines crisis of credibility (Epist. 20*), in Les lettres de
Saint Augustin, pp. 251265.
, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, see Abbreviations.
, The Donatist Church. A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford,
1952; repr. 1971).
Freu, C., Les figures du pauvre dans les sources italiennes de lantiquit tardive, tudes
darchologie et dhistoire ancienne (Paris, 2007).
Gaddis, M., There Is No Crime for Those Who Have Christ. Religious Violence in the
Christian Roman Empire, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 39 (Berkeley,
Los Angeles, London, 2005).
Garnsey, P., Famine and Food in the Graeco-Roman World. Responses to Risk and Crisis
(Cambridge, 1988).
Garnsey, P., Humfress, C., Evolution of the Late Antique World (Cambridge, 2001).
Garzya, A., Sinesio e Andronico, in Hestiasis. Studi di tarda antichit offerta a
Salvatore Costanza (Messina, 1998), pp. 93103.
Gaumer, M.A., Dupont, A., Lamberigts, M., ed., The Uniquely African Controversy:
Studies on Donatist Christianity, LAHR (Leuven, forthcoming).
Gibson, R., On the Nature of Ancient Letter Collections, Journal of Roman Studies
102 (2012), pp. 5678.
Gibson, R., Morello, R., Reading the Letters of Pliny the Younger (Cambridge,
2012).
Gillett, A., Communication in Late Antiquity: Use and Reuse, in ed. S.F. Johnson, The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Oxford Handbooks in Classics and
Ancient History (Oxford, 2012), pp. 815846.
, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411533 (Cambridge, 2003).
Gorce, D., Les voyages, lhospitalit et le port des lettres dans le monde chrtien des IV e
et V e sicles (Wpion-sur-Meuse, Paris, 1925).
Grasmck, E., Exilium. Untersuchungen zur Verbannung in der Antike, Rechts- und
staatswissenschaftliche Verfffentlichungen der Grres-Gesellschaft, NF 30
(Paderborn, 1978).
Graumann, T., Reading the First Council of Ephesus (431), in eds. R. Price, Ma.
246
bibliography
Whitby, Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400700, Contexts 1 (Liverpool,

2009), pp. 2744.
Graus, F., Die Gewalt bei den Anfngen des Feudalismus und die Gefangenenbefreiungen der merowingischen Hagiographie, Jahrbuch fr Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1 (1961), pp. 61156.
Green, B., The Soteriology of Leo the Great, Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford,
2008).
Gregory, T.E., Vox Populi: Popular Opinion and Violence in the Religious Controversies
in the Fifth Century AD (Columbus, OH, 1979).
Grillmeier, A., Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche: see Abbreviations, Grillmeier, CCT 2.
, Bacht, H., eds., Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3 vols.
(Wrzburg, 1951).
Grodzynski, D., Pauvres et indigents, vils et plebeians. (Une tude terminologique
sur le vocabulaire des petites gens dans le Code Thodosien), Studia et documenta historiae et iuris 53 (Rome 1987), pp. 140218.
Groh, D., Kempe, M., Mauelshagen, F., eds., Naturkatastrophen. Beitrge zu ihrer
Deutung, Wahrnehmung und Darstellung in Text und Bild von der Antike bis ins
20. Jahrhundert, Literatur und Anthropologie 13 (Tbingen, 2003).
Guidoboni, E. Comastri, A., Traina, G., Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the
Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century, rev. ed. of I terremoti prima del Mille
in Italia e nellarea mediterranea, trans. B. Phillips (Rome, 1994).
Haarer, F.K., Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, ARCA. Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 46 (Cambridge, 2006).
Hahn, I., Theodoretus Cyrus und die frhbyzantinische Besteuerung, Acta Antiqua
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 10 (1962), pp. 123130.
Hanson, C.L., Usury and the World of St. Augustine of Hippo, Augustinian Studies
19 (1988), pp. 141164.
Harries, J., Superfluous Verbiage? Rhetoric and Law in the Age of Constantine and
Julian, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 345374.
, Resolving Disputes: The Frontiers of Law in Late Antiquity, in ed. Mathisen,
Law, Society and Authority, pp. 6882.
, Law and Empire in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, 1999).
, Sidonius Apollinaris and the Fall of Rome, A.D. 407485 (Oxford, 1994).
Hatlie, P., The Monks and Monasteries of Constantinople c. 350850 (Cambridge,
2008).
, Redeeming Byzantine Epistolography, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies
20 (1996), pp. 213248.
Heather, P., Christianity and the Vandals in the Reign of Geiseric, in eds. J. Drinkwater, B. Salway, Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected: Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends
and Pupils, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement (London,
2007), pp. 137146.
Hekster, O., de Kleijn, G., Slootjes, D., eds., Crises and the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Seventh Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire,
Nijmegen, 2024 June, 2006 (Leiden, 2007).
Hellebrand, J., ed., Augustinus als Richter, Cassiciacum 39/5, Res et Signa Augustinus-Studien 5 (Wrzburg, 2009).
bibliography
247
Hermann, T., Patriarch Paul von Antiochia und das Alexandrinische Schisma von
Jahre 575, Zeitschrift fr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 27 (1928), pp. 263
304.
Hillner, J., Monastic Imprisonment in Justinians Novels, JECS 15/2 (2007), pp. 205
237.
, Families, Patronage and the Titular Churches of Rome, c. 300c. 600, in eds.
Cooper, Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage, pp. 225261.
Holman, S.R., The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia,
Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford, 2001).
, The Entitled Poor. Human Rights Language in the Cappadocians, Doctores
Ecclesiae, in Pro Ecclesia 9/4 (2000), pp. 476488.
, The Hungry Body: Famine, Poverty and Identity in Basils Hom. 8, JECS 7
(1999), pp. 338363.
Hombergen, D., The Second Origenist Controversy: A New Perspective on Cyril of
Scythopolis Monastic Biographies as Historical Sources for Sixth-Century Origenism, Studia Anselmiana 132 (Rome, 2001).
Honigmann, E., vques et vchs monophysites dAsie antrieure au VI e sicle,
CSCO 127, Subsidia 2 (Louvain, 1951).
, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950), pp. 209279.
Horn, C.B., Martens, J.W., Let the Little Children Come to Me: Children and Childhood
in Early Christianity (Washington, DC, 2009).
Horn, C.B., Asceticism and Christological Controversy in Fifth-century Palestine: The
Career of Peter the Iberian, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford, New York,
2006).
Huebner, S.R., Currencies of Power: The Venality of Offices in the Later Roman
Empire, in eds. A. Cain, N. Lenski, The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Aldershot, 2009), pp. 167180.
Humbert, M., Enfants louer et vendre: Augustin et lautorit parentale, in Les
lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 189204.
Humfress, C., Bishops and Law Courts in Late Antiquity: How (Not) to Make Sense
of the Legal Evidence, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 375400.
, Orthodoxy and the Courts in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2007).
, A New Legal Cosmos: Late Roman Lawyers and the Early Medieval Church,
in eds. P. Lineham, J.L. Nelson, The Medieval World (London, New York, 2001),
pp. 557575.
Humphries, M. From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space, and Authority at Rome
From Constantine to Gregory the Great, in eds. Cooper, Hillner, Religion,
Ihssen, B.L., They Who Give from Evil: The Response of the Eastern Church to Moneylending in the Early Christian Era (Eugene, OR, 2012).
, That Which Has Been Wrung from Tears: Usury, the Greek Fathers and
Catholic Social Teaching, in eds. J. Leemans, B. Matz, J. Verstraeten, Patristic Social Ethics. Issues and Challenges for 21st Century Christian Social Thought,
Catholic University of America Studies in Early Christianity (Washington, DC,
2011), pp. 124160.
, Basil and Gregorys Sermons on Usury: Credit Where Credit is Due, JECS
16/3 (2008), pp. 403430.
248
bibliography
Jacques, F., Le dfenseur de cit daprs la Lettre 22* de saint Augustin, Revue des
tudes augustiniennes 32 (1986), pp. 5673.
Jaff, P., Kaltenbrunner, F., eds., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum Ab Condita Ecclesia
Ad Annum Post Christum Natum MCXCVIII, 2 vols., 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1885; repr.
Graz, 1956).
James, N.W., Leo the Great and Prosper of Aquitaine: a Fifth-century Pope and His
Advisor, JTS ns 44/2 (1993), pp. 554584.
Jasper, D., Fuhrmann H., Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages, History of Medieval
Canon Law (Washington, DC, 2001).
Jastrzebowska, E., Chersonse dans lAntiquit tardive: tat des recherches et bibliographie, Antiquit Tardive 9 (2001), pp. 399418.
Jones, A.H.M., Martindale, J.R., Morris, J., eds., The Prosopography of the Later Roman
Empire, vol. 2, AD 395527 (Cambridge, 1980). See abbreviations, PLRE 2.
Kaufman, P.I., Patience and/or Politics: Augustine and the Crisis at Calama, 408
409, VC 57/1 (2003), pp. 2335.
, Augustine, Macedonius, and the Courts, Augustinian Studies 34/1 (2003),
pp. 6782.
Kim, C.-H., Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation,
Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 4 (Missoula, MT, 1972).
Kinzig, W., Rheindorf, T., eds., Katastrophenund die Antworten der Religionen,
Studien des Bonner Zentrums fr Religion und Gesellschaft 7 (Wrzburg, 2011).
Klingshirn, W., Charity and Power: The Ransoming of Captives in Sub-Roman Gaul,
Journal of Roman Studies 75 (1985), pp. 183203.
Koch, H., Gelasius im kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorgnger, der Ppste Simplicius (468483) und Felix III. (483492). Ein Beitrag zur Sprache des Papstes Gelasius I. (492496) und frher Papstbriefe (Munich, 1935).
Koder, J., Climate Change in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries?, in eds. P. Allen, E. Jeffreys, The Sixth Century. End or Beginning?, Byzantina Australiensia 10 (Brisbane,
1996), pp. 270285.
, Ein einschriftlicher Beleg zur justinianischen Pest in Zora (Azraa), Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995), pp. 1318.
Kolb, A., Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Rmischen Reich, Klio. Beitrge zur
Alten Geschichte, Beihefte, NF 2 (Berlin, 2000).
Klzer, A., Die Festbriefe (Epistolai heortastikai)Eine wenig beachtete Untergattung der byantinischen Briefliteratur, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 91 (1998), pp. 370
390.
Kuhn, E.-M., Rechtsprechung durch den Bischofsrichter. Augustin und die Umsetzung der gttlichen Gerechtigkeit in der Praxis, in ed. Hellebrand, Augustinus
als Richter, pp. 106155.
Kulikowski, M., Spanish Plague in Late Antiquity, in ed. Little, Plague and the End
of Antiquity, pp. 150170.
Kurdock, A., Demetrias ancilla dei: Anicia Demetrias and the Problem of the Missing Patron, in eds. Cooper, Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage, pp. 190224.
Lacombrade, C., Synsios hellne et chrtien (Paris, 1951).
Laiou, A.F., The Church, Economic Thought and Economic Practice, in ed. R.F. Taft,
The Christian East, Its Institutions and Its Thought: A Critical Reflection, Orientalia
Christiana Analecta 251 (Rome, 1996), pp. 435464.
bibliography
249
Lamberigts, M., Cooperation of Church and State in the Condemnation of Pelagianism, in eds. T.L. Hettema, A. van der Kooij, Religious Polemics in Context (Assen,
2004), pp. 363375.
, Iulianus IV (Iulianus von Aeclanum), RAC 19 [149/150] (1999), pp. 483505.
, Augustine and Julian of Aeclanum on Zosimus, Augustiniana 42 (1992),
pp. 311330.
Lamoreaux, J., Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity, JECS 3 (1995), pp. 143167.
Lancel, S., Laffaire dAntonius de Fussala: pays, choses et gens de la Numidie
dHippone saisis dans la dure dune procdure denqute piscopale, in Les
lettres de Saint Augustin, pp. 267285.
Lapeyre, G.-G., Saint Fulgence de Ruspe. Un vque catholique africain sous la domination vandale (Paris, 1929).
Lattke, M., Hymnus. Materialien zu einer Geschichte der antiken Hymnologie, Novum
Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus 19 (Freiburg, Gttingen, 1991).
Lebon, J., Ephrem dAmid, patriarche dAntioche, 526544, in Mlanges dhistoire
offerts Charles Moeller loccasion de son jubil de 50 annes de professorat
lUniversit de Louvain 18631913, vol. 1, Antiquit et Moyen ge, Universit de
Louvain receuil de travaux 40 (Louvain, Paris, 1914), pp. 197214.
, Le monophysisme svrien. tude historique, littraire et thologique (Louvain,
1909; repr. New York, 1978); rev. in La christologie du monophysisme svrien,
in eds. Grillmeier, Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, pp. 425580.
Lee, A.D., War in Late Antiquity. A Social History (Oxford, 2007).
Leemans, J., Van Nuffelen, P., Keough, S.W.J., Nicolaye, C., eds., Episcopal Elections in
Late Antiquity, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119 (Berlin, 2011).
Lenski, N., Evidence for the audientia episcopalis in the New Letters of Augustine,
in ed. Mathisen, Law, Society and Authority, pp. 8397.
Lepelley, C., Facing Wealth and Poverty: Defining Augustines Social Doctrine, The
Saint Augustine Lecture 2006, Augustinian Studies 38 (2007), pp. 117.
, Le patronat piscopale aux IV e et V e sicles, in eds. Rebillard, Sotinel,
Lvque dans la cit, pp. 1733.
, Libert, colonat et esclavage daprs la Lettre 24*: la juridiction piscopale
de liberali causa, in Les lettres de Saint Augustin, pp. 329342.
, La crise de lAfrique romaine au dbut du Ve sicle daprs les Lettres
nouvellement dcouvertes de saint Augustin, Comptes rendus des sances de
lacadmie des inscriptions et belles lettres (Paris, 1982), pp. 445463.
Les lettres de saint Augustin dcouvertes par Johannes Divjak. Communications prsentes au colloque des 20 et 21 septembre 1982, tudes augustiniennes (Paris, 1983).
Lexikon des Mittelalters, eds. R. Auty et al., 9 vols. (Munich, Zurich, 19771995; repr.
Stuttgart, 2003).
Leyerle, B., Mobility and the Traces of Empire, in ed. Rousseau, A Companion to
Late Antiquity, pp. 110123.
Leyser, C., Asceticism and Authority from Augustine to Gregory the Great (Oxford,
2000).
Liebeschuetz, W., Was There a Crisis of the Third Century?, in eds. Hekster, de
Kleijn, Slootjes, Crises and the Roman Empire, pp. 1120.
Lieu, S.N.C., Manicheism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 63, 2nd ed. (Tbingen, 1992).
250
bibliography
Lim, R., Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (Berkeley,
1995).
Little, L., ed., Plague and the End of Antiquity. The Pandemic of 541750 (New York,
2007).
Lizzi, R., Il potere episcopale nellOriente romano. Rappresentazione ideologica e
realt politica (IV V sec. d. C.), Filologia e critica 53 (Rome, 1987).
Lizzi Testa, R., The Late Antique Bishop: Image and Reality, in ed. P. Rousseau, A
Companion to Late Antiquity, pp. 525538.
Louth, A., Why Did the Syrians Reject the Council of Chalcedon?, in eds. R. Price,
Ma. Whitby, Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400700, Contexts 1 (Liverpool, 2009), pp. 107116.
Maas, M., ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge,
2005).
McBrien, R., Lives of the Popes. The Pontiffs from St Peter to Benedict XVI, rev. ed. (New
York, 2005).
McGuckin, J.A., Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy, Its History, Theology, and Texts, Supplements to VC 23 (Leiden, 1994).
, The Theopaschite Confession (Text and Historical Context): A Study in
the Cyrilline Re-interpretation of Chalcedon, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 35
(1984), pp. 239255.
McLynn, N., Crying Wolf: The Pope and the Lupercalia, Journal of Roman Studies
98 (2008), pp. 161175.
McShane, P.A., La romanitas et le pape Lon le Grand: lapport culturel des institutions impriales la formation des structures ecclsiastiques (Tournai, Montreal,
1979).
Magdalino, P., The History of the Future and its Uses: Prophecy, Policy and Propaganda, in eds. R. Beaton, C. Rouch, The Making of Byzantine History. Studies
Dedicated to Donald M. Nicol, Centre for Hellenic Studies, Kings College London
Publications 1 (Aldershot, Brookfield, VT, 1993), pp. 334.
Maier, H.O., Manichee!: Leo the Great and the Orthodox Panopticon, JECS 4/4
(1996), pp. 441460.
Malherbe, A.J., Ancient Epistolary Theorists, Society of Biblical Literature, Sources
for Biblical Study no. 19 (Atlanta, GA, 1988).
Maloney, R.P., The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the
Development of Christian Thinking, VC 27 (1973), pp. 241265.
Markus, R.A., Sotinel, C., Introduction and Epilogue, in eds. Chazelle, Cubitt, The
Crisis of the Oikoumene, pp. 114, 265278.
Martin, H., La controverse trithite dans lempire byzantine au VIe sicle, diss.
Louvain, 1960.
Maspero, J., Histoire des patriarches dAlexandrie depuis la mort de lempereur Anastase jusqu la reconciliation des glises jacobites (518646), Bibliothque de
lcole des Hautes tudes 237 (Paris, 1923).
Mathisen, R.W., ed., Law, Society and Authority in Late Antiquity (Oxford, 2001).
, Emigrants, Exiles, and Survivors: Aristocratic Options in Visigothic Aquitania, Phoenix 38/2 (1984), pp. 159170.
, Epistolography, Literary Circles, and Family Ties in Late Roman Gaul, Transactions of the American Philological Society 111 (1981), 95109.
bibliography
251
, D.R. Shanzer, eds., Society and Culture in Late Antique Gaul. Revisiting the
Sources (Ashgate, 2001).
Mayer, C., Legitimation des Rechts bei Augustinus, in ed. Hellebrand, Augustinus
als Richter, pp. 6083.
, ed., Augustinus-Lexikon, 3 vols. (Basel, 1986).
Mayer, W., John Chrysostom as Crisis Manager: Reading Back into the Years in
Constantinople, in eds. Sim, Allen, Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts, pp. 129
143.
, The Bishop as Crisis Manager: An Exploration of Early Fifth-Century Episcopal Strategy, in eds. D. Luckensmeyer, P. Allen, Studies of Religion and Politics in the Early Christian Centuries, Early Christian Studies 13 (Strathfield, 2010),
pp. 159171.
, Allen, P., The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300368CE), LAHR 5 (Leuven,
2012).
Meier, M., ed., Justinian: Neue Wege der Forschung (Darmstadt, 2011).
, Anastasios I. Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches (Stuttgart, 2009).
, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontinenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewltigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Hypomnemata 147 (Gttingen, 2003).
Menze, V.L., Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Oxford Early
Christian Studies (Oxford, 2008).
Merdinger, J.E., Rome and the African Church in the Time of Augustine (New Haven,
London, 1997).
Milewski, I., Miejsca zsyek biskupw wschodniorzymskich w IV i IV wieku, Vox
Patrum 19 (1999), pp. 367386.
Moeller, C., Le Chalcdonisme et le no-Chalcdonisme en Orient de 451 la fin
du VIe sicle, in eds. Grillmeier, Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, pp. 637
720.
Moorhead, J., On Becoming Pope in Late Antiquity, Journal of Religious History 30.3
(2006), pp. 279293.
Moreau, D., Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas. Lorigine de lintroduction des
lettres pontificales dans le droit canonique, in eds. J. Desmulliez, C. Hot-van
Cauwenberghe, J.-C. Jolivet, Ltudes des correspondances dans le monde romain
de lAntiquit classique lAntiquit tardive: permanences et mutations, Actes du
XXXe Colloque international de Lille, 2022 novembre 2008 (Villeneuve-dAscq,
2010), pp. 487506.
Morey, A., Brooke, C.N.L., Gilbert Foliot and His Letters, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, ns 11 (Cambridge, New York, 1965).
Morgenstern, M., Die Briefpartner des Augustinus von Hippo. Prosopographische,
sozialund ideologiegeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Bochum, 1993).
Moser, T., Die patristische Zinslehre und ihre Ursprnge: vom Zinsgebot zum Wucherverbot (Zrich, 1997).
Mratschek, S., Der Briefwechsel des Paulinus von Nola. Kommunikation und soziale
Kontakte zwischen christlichen Intellektuellen, Hypomnemata 134 (Gttingen,
2002).
, Einblicke in einen Postsack. Zur Struktur und Edition der Natalicia des
Paulinus von Nola, Zeitschrift fr Papyrologie und Epigraphik 114 (1996), pp. 165
172.
252
bibliography
Mullett, M., Theophylact of Ochrid. Reading the Letters of a Byzantine Bishop, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 2 (Aldershot, Brookfield, VT, 1997).
Munier, C., Audientia episcopalis, in ed. Mayer, Augustinus-Lexikon, vol. 1 (Basel,
1986), cols. 511515.
, La question des appels Rome daprs la Lettre 20* dAugustin, in Les lettres
de Saint Augustin, pp. 287299.
Neil, B. The Decretals of Gelasius I: Making Canon Law in Late Antiquity, in Lex et
religio in et tardoantica, XL Incontro de Studiosi dellAntichit Cristiana (Roma,
1012 maggio 2012), Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum, 135 (Rome, forthcoming).
, Allen, P., Letters of Gelasius I (492496): Pastor and Micro-Manager of Rome,
Adnotationes (Turnhout, forthcoming).
, The Letters of Gelasius I (492496): A New Model of Crisis Management?
in ed. G. Dunn, The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity (forthcoming).
, dal Santo, M., eds., A Companion to Gregory the Great (Leiden, Boston, forthcoming).
, Crisis and Wealth in Byzantine Italy: The Libri Pontificales of Rome and
Ravenna, Byzantion 82 (2012), pp. 279303.
, A Crisis of Orthodoxy: Leo Is Fight against the Deadly Disease of Heresy,
in eds. Sim, Allen, Ancient Jewish and Christian, pp. 144158.
, Allen, P., Displaced Peoples: Reflections from Late Antiquity on a Contemporary Crisis, Pacifica 24/1 (2011), pp. 2942.
, Imperial Benefactions to the Fifth-Century Roman Church, in eds. G.
Nathan, L. Garland, Basileia: Essays on Imperium and Culture in Honour of E.M.
and M.J. Jeffreys, Byzantina Australiensia 17 (Brisbane, 2011), pp. 5566.
, Models of Gift Giving in the Preaching of Leo the Great, JECS 18/2 (2010),
pp. 225258.
, From tristia to gaudia. The Exile and Martyrdom of Pope Martin I, in ed.
J. Leemans, Martyrdom and Persecution in Late Antique Christianity. Festschrift
Boudewijn Dehandschutter, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 241 (Leuven, Paris, Walpole, MA, 2010), pp. 179194.
, Blessed are the Rich: Leo the Great and the Roman Poor, StP 44 (2010),
pp. 533548.
, On True Humility: an Anonymous Letter on Poverty and the Female Ascetic,
in eds. W. Mayer, P. Allen, L. Cross, Prayer and Spirituality in the Early Church,
vol. 4: The Spiritual Life (Strathfield, 2006), pp. 233246.
Noble, T.F.X., Theodoric and the Papacy, in Teodorico il Grande e i goti dItalia. Atti
dei congressi 13 (Spoleto, 1993), pp. 395425.
Norton, P., Episcopal Elections 250600: Hierarchy and Popular Will in Late Antiquity
(Oxford, 2007).
Ocker, C., Augustine, Episcopal Interests, and the Papacy in Late Roman Africa,
Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42/2 (1991), pp. 179201.
Olshausen, E., Sonnabend, H., eds., Naturkatastrophen in der antiken Welt: Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums 6, 1996, Geographica
Historica 10 (Stuttgart, 1998).
Olster, D., Chalcedonian and Monophysite: The Union of 616, Bulletin de la Socit
dArchologie Copte 27 (1985), pp. 93108.
bibliography
253
Paoli-Lafaye, ., Messagers et messages. La diffusion des nouvelles de lAfrique

dAugustin vers les rgions dau-del des mers, in eds. J. Andreau, C. Virlouvet,
LInformation et la mer dans le monde antique (Rome, 2002), pp. 233259.
Patlagean, E., Pauvrt conomique et pauvrt sociale Byzance 4e7e sicles, Civilisations et Socits 48 (Paris, 1977).
Perrone, L., La Chiesa di Palestina e le controversie cristologiche (Brescia, 1980).
Petersen, J.M., The Dialogues of Gregory the Great in Their Late Antique Cultural
Background, Studies and Texts 69 (Toronto, 1984).
Pietri, L., vergtisme chrtien et fondations prives dans lItalie de lantiquit
tardive, in eds. R. Lizzi Testa, J.-M. Carri, Humana Sapit: tudes dantiquit
tradive offertes a Lellia Cracco Ruggini (Turnhout, 2002), pp. 253263.
Pietrini, S., Religio e ius romanum nellepistolario di Leone Magno, Materiali per una
palingenesi delle costituzioni tardo-imperiali 6 (Milan, 2002).
Poster, C., Mitchell, L.C., Letter-Writing Manuals and Instruction from Antiquity to the
Present, Historical and Bibliographic Studies, Studies in Rhetoric/Communication (Columbia, SC, 2007).
Prvot, F., Gauge, V., vques gaulois lpreuve de lexil aux V e et VIe sicles, in
ed. Blaudeau, Exil et relgation, pp. 309349.
Price, R., Whitby, Ma., eds., Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400700, Contexts
1 (Liverpool, 2009).
Pugliese, A., Der hl. Augustinus als Richter. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der episcopalis audientia , in ed. Hellebrand, Augustinus als Richter, pp. 2159.
Purcell, P., The Populace of Rome in Late Antiquity: Problems of Classification and
Historical Description, in ed. W.V. Harris, The Transformations of URBS ROMA
in Late Antiquity, The Proceedings of a Conference held at the University of
Rome La Sapienza and at the American Academy in Rome, Journal of Roman
Archaeology Supplementary Series 33 (Portsmouth, RI, 1999), pp. 135161.
Quasten, J., Patrology, vol. 3, The Golden Age of Greek Patristic Literature From the
Council of Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon (Utrecht, 1950; repr. Westminster,
1988).
Raikas, K.K., Audientia Episcopalis: Problematik zwischen Staat und Kirche bei
Augustin, Augustinianum 37 (1997), pp. 459481. Repr. as Audientia episcopalis.
Problematik zwischen Staat und Kirche bei Augustin, in ed. Hellebrand, Augustin als Richter, pp. 84105.
Rammelt, C., Ibas von Edessa. Rekonstruktion einer Biographie und dogmatischen
Position zwischen den Fronten, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 106 (Berlin, New
York, 2008).
Ramsey, B., Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries, Theological Studies 42 (1982), pp. 226259.
Rapp, C., Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity. The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age
of Transition, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37 (Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London, 2005).
Rebillard, ., Sotinel, C., eds., Lvque dans la cit du IV e au V e sicle: image et authorit, Actes de la table ronde organise par lIstituto Patristico Augustinianum et
lcole franaise de Rome, 12 dcembre 1995, Collection de lcole franaise de
Rome 248 (Rome, 1998).
Rees, B.R., Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge, 1998).
254
bibliography
Ricci, C., Gregorys Missions to the Barbarians, in eds. Neil and Dal Santo, A
Companion to Gregory the Great, forthcoming.
Richards, J., The Popes and the Papacy in the Early Middle Ages 476752 (London, New
York, 1979).
Rigsby, K.J., Asylia. Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley, Los
Angeles, London, 1996).
Roda, S., Polifunzionalit della lettera commendaticia: Teoria e prassi nellepistolario Simmachiano, in ed. F. Paschoud, Colloque Genevois sur Symmache sur loccasion du mille six centime anniversaire du conflit de lautel de la Victoire (Paris,
1986), pp. 177207.
Roques, D., tudes sur la correspondance de Synsios de Cyrne, Collection Latomus
205 (Brussels, 1989).
, Synsios de Cyrne et la Cyrnaque du bas-empire, tudes dantiquits africaines (Paris, 1987).
Roug, J., Escroquerie et brigandage en Afrique romaine au temps de saint Augustin
(Epist. 8* et 10*), in Les lettres de saint Augustin, pp. 177188.
Rousseau, P., ed., A Companion to Late Antiquity. Blackwell Companions to the
Ancient World (Chichester, 2009).
Roux, R., Lexgse biblique dans les Homlies cathdrales de Svre dAntioche, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 84 (Rome, 2002).
Sghy, M., Amator Castitatis: Pope Damasus and the Politics of Asceticism, StP 45
(2010), pp. 4954.
Salzman, M., Reconsidering a Relationship: Pope Leo of Rome and Prosper of
Aquitaine, in ed. G.D. Dunn, The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity (Aldershot,
forthcoming).
, Leo in Rome: The Evolution of Episcopal Authority in the Fifth Century, in
eds. G. Bonamente, R. Lizzi Testa, Istituzioni, carismi ed esercizio del potere (IVVI
secolo d.C.) (Bari, 2010), pp. 343356.
, Ambrose and the Usurpation of Arbogastes and Eugenius: Reflections on
Pagan-Christian Conflict Narratives, JECS 18/2 (2010), pp. 191223.
Schnitzler, T., Im Kampfe um Chalcedon. Geschichte und Inhalt des Codex Encyclius
von 458, Analecta Gregoriana 16 (Rome, 1938).
Schor, A.M., Theodorets People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman
Syria, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 48 (Los Angeles, 2011).
, Theodoret on the School of Antioch: A Network Approach, JECS 15 (2007),
pp. 517562.
Schwartz, J., In Oasin relegare, in ed. R. Chevallier, Mlanges dhistoire et darchologie offerts Andr Piganiol (Paris, 1966), vol. 3, pp. 14811488.
Scott, R., Justinians New Age and the Second Coming, in R. Scott, Byzantine
Chronicles and the Sixth Century, Variorum Collected Studies Series (Farnham,
2012), XIX, pp. 122 (first publication).
Selb, W., Episcopalis audientia von der Zeit Konstantins bis Novelle XXXV Valentinians III, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fr Rechtsgeschichte 84 (1967), pp. 162
217.
Seleznyov, N.N., Nestorius of Constantinople. Condemnation, Suppression, Veneration with Special Reference to the Role of His Name in East-Syriac Christianity,
Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 62 (2010), pp. 165190.
bibliography
255
Serfass, A., Slavery and Pope Gregory the Great, JECS 14/1 (2006), pp. 77
103.
Sessa, K., The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antiquity: Roman Bishops and the
Domestic Sphere (Cambridge, 2012).
, Ursas Return: Captivity, Remarriage, and the Domestic Authority of Roman
Bishops in Fifth-Century Italy, JECS 19/3 (2011), pp. 401432.
, Exceptionality and Invention: Silvester and the Late Antique Papacy at
Rome, StP 46 (2010), pp. 7794.
Shanzer, D., Dating the Baptism of Clovis: The Bishop of Vienne vs the Bishop of
Tours, Early Medieval Europe 7/1 (1998), pp. 2957.
Shaw, B.D., Sacred Violence. African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of
Augustine (Cambridge, 2011).
Silva-Tarouca, C., Nuovi studi sulle antiche lettere dei papi, vol. 1, Gregorianum 12
(Rome, 1932).
Sim, D.C., Allen, P., eds., Ancient Jewish and Christian Texts as Crisis Management
Literature. Thematic Studies from the Centre for Early Christian Studies, Library of
New Testament Studies 445 (London, 2012).
Sirks, A.J.B., Food for Rome: The Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing
of Supplies for the Imperial Distributions in Rome and Constantinople (Amsterdam, 1991).
, The Food Distributions in Rome and Constantinople: Imperial Power and
Continuity, in ed. A. Kolb, Herrschaftsstrukturen und Herrschaftspraxis: Konzepte, Prinzipien und Strategien der Administration im rmischen Kaiserreich
(Berlin, 2006), pp. 3444.
Sitzler, S., Deviance and Destitution: Social Poverty in the Homilies of John Chrysostom, StP 47 (2010), pp. 261266.
Sizgorich, T., Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity: Militant Devotion in Christianity and Islam, Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion (Philadelphia, PA,
2009).
Sonnabend, H., Naturkatastrophen in der Antike. WahrnehmungDeutungManagement (Stuttgart, Weimar, 1999).
Sotinel, C., Information and Political Power, in ed. P. Rousseau, A Companion to
Late Antiquity, pp. 125138.
, The Three Chapters and the Transformations of Italy, in eds. C. Chazelle,
C. Cubitt, The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest
for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14
(Turnhout, 2007), pp. 85120.
, Emperors and Popes in the Sixth Century. The Western View, in ed. M. Maas,
The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Justinian (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 267
290.
, How Were Bishops Informed? Information Transmission across the Adriatic
Sea in Late Antiquity, in eds. Ellis, Kidner, Travel, Communication and Geography, pp. 6371.
, Authorit pontificale et pouvoir imperial sous le rgne de Justinien: le pape
Vigile, Mlanges de lcole franaise de Rome 104 (1992), pp. 463493.
Spadavecchia, C., The Rhetorical Tradition in the Letters of Theodoret of Cyrus, in ed. V. Vavrnek, From Late Antiquity to Early Byantium. Proceedings of
256
bibliography
the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16th International Eirene Conference

(Prague, 1985), pp. 249252.
Stathakopoulos, D., Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine
Empire: A Systematic Survey of Subsistence Crises and Epidemics, Birmingham
Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 9 (Aldershot, 2003).
Sterk, A., Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late
Antiquity (Cambridge, MA, London, 2004).
Stewart, R., Atrib, in ed. A.S. Atiya, The Coptic Encyclopedia, vol. 1 (New York, 1991),
p. 307.
Stroheker, K.F., Der senatorische Adel im sptantiken Gallien (Tbingen, 1948).
Studer, B., Tritheism, in ed. A. Di Berardino, trans. A. Walford, Encyclopedia of the
Early Church, vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1992), p. 853.
Sykutris, J., Epistolographie, in eds. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, RE, Supplementband 5
(Stuttgart, 1931), pp. 186220.
Szidat, J., Zum Sklavenhandel in der Sptantike (Aug. epist. 10*), Historia 34 (1985),
pp. 560571.
Tanaseanu, I., Between Philosophy and the Church: Synesius of Cyrenes SelfDisplay in his Writings, Communication presented at the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 2006 (VI.3 Theology, Texts, Orthodoxy), www
.wra1th.plus.com/byzcong/comms/Tanaseanu_paper.pdf, accessed 17 June 2012.
Tanaseanu-Dbler, I., Konversion zur Philosophie in der Sptantike: Kaiser Julian und
Synesios von Kyrene, Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftliche Beitrge 23 (Stuttgart, 2008).
Taylor, J., The Early Papacy at Work: Gelasius I (4926), Journal of Religious History
8 (1975), pp. 317332.
Telelis, I.G., Weather and Climate as Factors Affecting Land Transport and Communications in Byzantium, Byzantion 77 (2007), pp. 432462.
, (Meteorologika phainomena
kai klima sto Byzantio), 2 vols, .
. Ponemata 5/12 (Athens, 2004).
Tibiletti, C., Polemiche in Africa contro i teologi provenzali, Augustinianum 26
(1986), pp. 499517.
Tilley, M., Redefining Donatism: Moving Forward, Augustinian Studies 42 (2011),
pp. 2132.
Tomau, C., Zwischen Rhetorik und Philosophie: Augustins Argumentationstechnik in
De Civitate Dei und ihr bildungsgeschichtlicher Hintergrund (Berlin, 2006).
Tomkins, I.G., Problems of Dating and Pertinence in Some Letters of Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, Byzantion 65 (1995), pp. 176195.
, The Relations between Theodoret of Cyrrhus and His City and Its Territory, with Particular Reference to the Letters and Historia Religiosa, DPhil diss.,
Oxford, 1993.
Uhalde, K., The Sinful Subject: Doing Penance in Rome, StP 44 (2010), pp. 405414.
, Expectations of Justice in the Age of Augustine (Philadelphia, 2007).
Urbainczyk, T., Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Bishop and the Holy Man (Ann Arbor, MI,
2002).
Vallejo Girvs, M., Locus horribilis? El destiarro en el Gran Oasis egipcio durante
la Antiqedad Tarda, in eds. M. Khanoussi, P. Ruggieri, C. Vismara, LAfrica
bibliography
257
romana. Atti del XV convengo di studio, Tozeur, 1115 dicembre 2002, 3 vols. (Rome,
2004), vol. 3, pp. 691698.
, Obispos exiliados y confinados en monasterios en poca protobyzantina,
Praktika 2, Parnassos Literary Society (2002), pp. 947965.
, Obispos exiliados: Mrtires politicos entre el Concilio de Nicea y la eclosin
monofisita, in ed. E. Reinhardt, Tempus implendi promissa. Homenaje al professor
Domingo Ramos-Lissn, Instituto de historia de la Iglesia, Facultad de teologa,
Universidad de Navarra, Historia de la Iglesia 33 (Pamplona, 2000), pp. 507
533.
van Oort, J., Wermelinger, O., Wurst, G., eds., Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin
West, Nag Hammadi and Manichean Studies 49 (Leiden, Boston, 2001).
Van Roey, A., La controverse trithite jusqu lexcommunication de Conon et
dEugne (557569), Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985), pp. 141165.
, La controverse trithite depuis la condamnation de Conon et Eugne jusqu la conversion de lvque Elie, in eds. W.C. Delsman et al., Von Kanaan bis
Kerala. Festschrift fr Prof. Mag. Dr. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des
siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979. berreicht von Kollegen, Freunden und
Schler, Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Verffentlichungen zur Kultur und
Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments 211 (Neukirchen, Vluyn,
1981), pp. 487497.
, Les dbuts de lglise jacobite, in eds. Grillmeier, Bacht, Das Konzil von
Chalkedon, vol. 2, pp. 339360.
van Waarden, J.A., Writing to Survive. A Commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris. Letters
Book 7, vol. 1: The Episcopal Letters 111, LAHR 2 (Leuven, 2010).
Vollmann, B., Studien zum Priszillianismus. Die Forschung, die Quellen, der fnfzehnte
Brief Papst Leos des Grossen, Kirchengeschichtliche Quellen und Studien 7 (St.
Ottilien, 1965).
Wagner, G., Les oasis dgypte lpoque grecque, romaine et byzantine daprs les
documents grecs (Recherches de papyrologie et dpigraphie grecques), Bibliothque dtudes de lIFAO 100 (Cairo, 1987).
Wagner, M.M., A Chapter in Byzantine Epistolography: The Letters of Theodoret of
Cyrus, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 4 (1948), pp. 121179.
Watts, E., Interpreting Catastrophe: Disasters in the Works of Pseudo-Joshua the
Stylite, Socrates Scholasticus, Philostorgius, and Timothy Aelurus, Journal of Late
Antiquity 2/1 (2009), pp. 7998.
Wermelinger, O., Das Pelagiusdossier in der Tractoria des Zosimus, Freiburger
Zeitschrift fr Philosophie und Theologie 26 (1979), pp. 336368.
, Rom und Pelagius: die theologische Position der rmischen Bischfe im pelagianischen Streit in den Jahren 411432, Ppste und Papsttum 7 (Stuttgart, 1975).
Wessel, S., Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome, Supplements to VC 93 (Leiden, 2009).
, Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and
of a Heretic (London, New York, 2004).
Wiemer, H.-U., Staatlichkeit und politisches Handeln in der rmischen Kaiserzeit
(Berlin, New York, 2006).
Williams, R., Origenes/Origenismus, Theologische Realenzyklopdie 25 (Berlin,
New York, 1995), pp. 397420.
258
bibliography
Winkelmann, F., gypten und Byzanz vor der arabischen Eroberung, Byzantinoslavica 40 (1979), pp. 161182.
Wirbelauer, E., Comment exiler un pape?, in ed. Blaudeau, Exil et relgation,
pp. 255272.
, Zwei Ppste in Rome. Der Konflict zwischen Laurentius und Symmachus (498
514), Studien und Texte (Freiburg, 1993).
Witschel, C., KriseRezessionStagnation? Das Westen des rmischen Reiches im 3.
Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Frankfurt am Main, 1999).
Wood, I.N. Letters and Letter-Collections from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages:
The Prose Works of Avitus of Vienne, in ed. M.A. Meyer, The Culture of Christendom (London, 1993), 2943.
Youssef, Y.N., Severus of Antioch in Scetis, Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 (2006),
pp. 142163.
Zelzer, M., Die Briefliteratur. Kommunikation durch Briefe: Ein Gesprch mit
Abwesenden, in eds. L.J. Engels, H. Hofmann, Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft 4, Sptantike mit einem Panorama der byzantinischen Literatur (Wiesbaden, 1997), pp. 321353.
Zettl, E., Die Besttigung des V. kumenischen Konzils durch Papst Vigilius. Untersuchungen ber die Echtheit der Briefe Scandala und Aetius (JK.936.937) (Bonn,
1974).
INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES

acta 6n, 24, 26, 40, 98, 102, 103104, 109110,
135, 136, 199, 206, 208209, 212213, 216
218
Ad Celantiam 172n
Agapitus I (b. of Rome)
Ep. 3 to Reparatus et al. 112n
Agathias
Histories 73n
Agnellus (b. of Ravenna)
Liber pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis
(LPR) 4243
Ambrose (b. of Milan)
De fide 105n
De incarnatione Domini 105n
De officiis 40n, 148n
Ep. 46 105n
Anastasius II (b. of Rome)
Ep. 1 to Anastasius I (emperor) 110n
Ep. 2 to Clovis (Merovingian king) 110n,
114n
Athanasius (b. of Alexandria)
Ep. ad Epictetum 105n
Augustine of Hippo
Contra Gaudentium 120n
De gestis Pelagii 22n
De moribus 51n73, 51n74
En. in ps. 36. Serm. 3 148n
En. in ps. 54 148n
Ep. 1* to Classicianus 47n, 184n
Ep. 7* 182n
Ep. 8* to Victor 182n
Ep. 9*174n, 182n
Ep. 10* to Alypius 32, 183n67, 183n68, 186,
223n
Ep. 11* 120n, 174n
Ep. 14* to Dorotheus 182n
Ep. 15* to clerics in Thagaste 183n
Ep. 20* to Fabiola 174n, 184n, 185n74,
185n75, 196n
Ep. 22* 32, 150n
Ep. 24* to Eustochius 32, 174n, 181n, 197n
Ep. 27* 223
Ep. 34 to Eusebius 56, 156n
Ep. 35 156n
Ep. 43 32
Ep. 49 32
Ep. 50 32
Ep. 51 32
Ep. 65 to Xanthippus 184n
Ep. 85 181n, 185n
Ep. 91 32, 194n
Ep. 97 32
Ep. 100 to Donatus (proconsul of Africa)
32
Ep. 104 194n
Ep. 108 120n
Ep. 111 120n107, 120n108
Ep. 133 32
Ep. 134 32
Ep. 137 105n
Ep. 139 32, 120n
Ep. 140 to Honoratus 116n
Ep. 150 to Proba and Juliana 116n
Ep. 152 181n
Ep. 153 181n
Ep. 156 from Hilary 22n
Ep. 157 to Hilary 22n, 116n
Ep. 162 20n
Ep. 178 32
Ep. 179 32
Ep. 185 32, 120n107, 120n108, 120n109
Ep. 186 to Paulinus of Nola 116
Ep. 187 to Dardanus 105n, 116
Ep. 188 to Juliana 116n
Ep. 191 32
Ep. 194 to Sixtus III (b. of Rome) 32, 116
Ep. 209 to Celestine (b. of Rome) 185n
Ep. 220 to comes Africae 32
Ep. 238 32
Ep. 239 32
Ep. 241 32
Ep. 247 to Romulus 150n
Ep. 250 to Auxilius (bishop) 47n
Ep. 251 181182n
Retractationes 2.36 22n
Serm. 42 149n
Serm. 77A 148n
Serm. 78 105n
Serm. 86 148n
Serm. 113 148n
Serm. 239 148n
Serm. 359A 148n
260
index of ancient sources
Avitus (b. of Vienne)

Ep. 7 34, 114n
Ep. 8 34
Ep. 10 to Eustorgius (b. of Milan) 34, 41n,
196n
Ep. 12 to Maximus of Pavia 41n
Ep. 23 to Sigismund (Burgundian king)
34, 114n
Ep. 28 114n
Ep. 30 34
Ep. 31 to Sigismund 34, 114n
Ep. 33 34
Ep. 34 34
Ep. 35 to Liberius (prefect) 34, 41n, 196n
Ep. 44 to Gundobad (Burgundian king)
48n
Ep. 46 to Clovis (Merovingian king) 34,
115n
Ep. 49 34, 196n
Ep. 53 34
Ep. 77 34, 114n
Ep. 86 34, 114n
Ep. 87 34
Basil (b. of Caesarea)
Ep. 323 to Philagrius 21n
Ep. 338 from Libanius 19n
Boniface I (b. of Rome)
Ep. to Honorius (emperor) 215
Canones in causa Apiarii 148n
Cassian
De incarnatione Christi 118n
Cassiodorus
Institutiones 132n
Celestine I (b. of Rome)
Ep. to clergy of Constantinople 215
Ep. to Flavian (b. of Philippi) 215
Ep. to Nestorius 215
Ep. 6 from Nestorius 30n
Ep. 9 from Cyril of Alexandria 23n, 99
Ep. 17 to bishops and priests 23n
Cicero
Contra Lucium Catilinam 120n
Contra Rullum 120n
Ep. 13.1 to Atticus 18n
In Verrem 120n
Claudianus Mamertus
De statu animae 226
Codex Encyclius (CEn) 31n, 98, 105n, 130137
Codex Justinianus (CJ)

1.4.7 179n
1.4.26 202n
1.12.3 47n
1.12.4 48n
Codex Theodosianus (CTh)
1.27.2 179n
1.29.18 150n
3.17.1 167n
3.30.12 167n
4.14 178n
5.810 83n
5.910 48n
9.45 168n
9.45.4 47n
9.45.5 48n
16.2.27 117n
16.5.62 49n
16.11.1 179n
Codex Vaticanus gr. 1431 104n, 107n, 206
Collectio Arelatensis 221
Collectio Avellana 60n, 150n, 186n, 214, 221,
225
Collectio Corbeiensis 214
Collectio Dionysiana 170, 214
Collectio Hispana 214
Collectio Patmensis 211
Collectio Quesnelliana 214
Collectio Sakellionis 48n
Collectio Sangermanensis 131132
Collectio Sirmondiana 211
Collectio Thessalonicensis 214
Collectio Veronensis 107n
Commodian
Instructiones divinae 148n
Constitutiones Sirmondianae 94n
3 178n
4 48n
6 117n, 178n
13 168n
Council of Chalcedon, canons 104, 106
canon 4 180n, 202n
canon 8 202n
canon 9 178n
canon 11 202n
canon 17 178n
canon 28 104n, 109
Cyril of Alexandria
Anathemata (Twelve Chapters) 100, 103,
141, 209
Commonitorium to Celestine I 23
De incarnatione 105n

Ep. 2 to Nestorius 105n
Ep. 3 to Nestorius 100
Ep. 5 from Nestorius 206
Ep. 12 from Constantine 206
Ep. 15 from Acacius of Beroea 206
Ep. 20 to the clergy and people of
Alexandria 53n
Ep. 22 from John of Antioch 206
Ep. 29 from Alypius of Constantinople
206
Ep. 30 from Maximian 206
Ep. 36 from Paul of Emesa 206
Epp. 5152 from Sixtus of Rome 206
Ep. 73 from Rabbula of Edessa 206
Ep. 75 from Atticus of Constantinople
206
Ep. 76 206
Ep. 80 206
Ep. 82 206
Epp. 8688 206
Ep. fest. 7 9293
Ep. fest. 8 9394, 112n
Ep. to deacon Leo 216
Festal Letters 23, 27, 81, 86, 90, 9194, 112,
196n, 206
De vera humilitate ad Demetriadem 116, 172
Documenta monophysitica (DM) 24n, 45,
126127, 129, 137144, 196, 207, 211, 212
Ennodius (b. of Pavia)
Vita Epiphanii 24n, 40n13, 40n14, 41n
Epistula clericorum Mediolanensium ad
legatos Francorum 59n, 154n
Eugippius
Vita Severini 40n
Evagrius Scholasticus
Historia Ecclesiastica 5455, 73n, 74,
84, 85, 105, 122, 129n, 131n, 133n165,
133n166, 133n169, 133n170, 136137, 210
Faustus (b. of Riez)
De gratia 118, 226
Ep. 1 118n
Ep. 103 to Ruricius (b. of Limoges) (=
Ruricius, Ep. 11) 43n, 196n
Ep. 104 to Ruricius (b. of Limoges) (=
Ruricius, Ep. 12) 43n, 196n
261
Felix III (b. of Rome)

Epp. 12 108
Ep. 3 to Peter the Fuller 108, 113n
Ep. 4 to Zeno (emperor) 23n, 108
Ep. 5 to Zeno (emperor) 29n, 108
Ep. 6 108
Ep. 7 108
Ep. 9 108n
Ep. 11 218
Ep. 13 218
Firmus (b. of Caesarea)
Ep. 12 to Helladius 81
Ep. 36 47n
Ep. 43 47n
Flavian (b. of Constantinople)
Ep. 1 to Leo I (b. of Rome) 101
Ep. 2 to Leo I (b. of Rome) 101
Fulgentius (b. of Ruspe)
Ad Trasamundum regem I 57n, 224
Dicta regis Trasamundi (Contra Arianos)
57n, 224
Ep. 2 to Galla 21
Ep. 15 57
Ep. 16 57
Ep. 17 to Peter the deacon 57
Ep. 18 to Reginus 57n
Gelasius I (b. of Rome)
Adv. Andromachum 81, 83n, 86
Ep. 1 to bishops of Syria 109, 167n
Ep. 4 218
Ep. 6 to Victorinus et al. (bishops) 179n
Ep. 7 to bishops of Dardania 108n, 110n,
166
Ep. 9 to Natalis (abbot) 110n
Ep. 10 to Succonius of North Africa 110n
Ep. 11 from bishops of Dardania 108n
Ep. 12 to Anastasius (emperor) 109110
Ep. 13 to Rusticus (b. of Lyon) 129
Ep. 14 (General Decretal) 163, 169170
Ep. 14 to the Gothic zeja 167n, 219
Ep. 15 218
Ep. 16 219
Ep. 17 168n
Ep. 18 to bishops of Dardania and
Illyricum 108n, 110n
Ep. 20 164, 165n105, 165n107, 165n108
Ep. 21 to Martyrius and Justus (bishops)
165n
Ep. 22 169n
Ep. 24 to the Gothic zeja 170
Ep. 26 to bishops of Dardania 109n
262
Gelasius I (cont.)
Ep. 27 to bishops of the East 109n, 167n
Ep. 30 110n
Ep. 31 168n
Ep. 32 168n
Ep. 36 163164
Ep. 37 164
Ep. 38 164
Ep. 39 164
Ep. 40 to John (b. of Spoleto) 168n, 169n
Ep. 42 De libris accipiendis 198
Ep. 43 to bishops of Syria 110
Ep. 46 to Hereleuva 219
Frag. 11 179n
Frag. 12 167n, 179n
Frag. 13 179n
Frag. 15 to Rufinus and Justus (bishops)
151n
Frag. 16 169n
Frag. 20 to Victor (b. of Beneventum)
167n
Frag. 22 166n
Frag. 29 168n
Frag. 33 166n
Frag. 35 to Firmina (illustris) 172n
Frag. 36 to Hereleuva 172n
Frag. 39 to Epiphanius (bishop) 47n
Frag. 40 to Victor et al. (bishops) 168n
Frag. 41 to Boniface (bishop) 168n
Frag. 42 168n
Frag. 43 to Siracusius et al. (bishops) 48n
Frag. 46 169n
Frag. 57 166n
Gesta de Xysti purgatione 216
Gregory (b. of Nazianzus)
Or. 13 105n
Or. 21 156n
Gregory (b. of Nyssa)
Ep. 14 to Libanius 19n
Gregory (b. of Tours)
Historia Francorum 115n
Gregory the Great (b. of Rome)
Dialogi 40
Registrum epistularum 29, 222
Reg. 1.41 to Leander of Seville 115n
Reg. 1.70 88n
Reg. 1.72 121n
Reg. 2.2 88n
Reg. 2.33 121n
Reg. 2.37 51n, 52n
Reg. 2.45 48n
Reg. 2.46 121n
Reg. 3.32 121n

Reg. 4.21 48n
Reg. 5.36 88n
Reg. 9.229 to Reccared 115n
Reg. 9.232 88n
Reg. 10.20 88n
Reg. 10.21 126n
Hilary (b. of Poitiers)
De trinitate 105n
Hilary the deacon
Ep. to Pulcheria 216
Homer
Odyssey 62
Hormisdas (b. of Rome)
Ep. 3 from Dorotheus of Thessalonica 219
Ep. 4 124n
Ep. 6 124n
Ep. 7 219
Ep. 8 124n126, 124n127
Ep. 13 124n
Ep. 21 from Avitus of Vienne 219
Ep. 27 124n
Ep. 37 124n
Epp. 4142 from Emperor Justin 219
Ep. 44 from Justinian 210
Ep. 66 from Emperor Justin 219
Ep. 68 from Justin 219
Ep. 70 from Anastasia 219
Ep. 71 from Juliana Anicia 219
Epp. 78, 89, 99 from Justin 219
Epp. 101 and 108 from Emperor Justin 219
Ep. 116 from Emperor Justin 219
Ep. 117 from Euphemia 219
Ep. 118 from illustris Celer 219
Ep. 119 from Juliana Anicia 219
Ep. 125 198n
Epp. 132 and 135 from Justin 219
Ep. 136 from Epiphanius 219
Ep. 148 from Dionysius Exiguus 219
Libellus fidei 124, 219
Innocent I (b. of Rome)
Ep. 3 119n
Ep. 16 to Marcian (b. of Nis) 194n
Ep. 36 to Probus 39n
Ep. 41 to Laurentius (b. of Siena) 150
Ep. 43 to Severian of Gabala 214
Ep. 44 to Aurelius of Carthage 214
Irish Penitentials 40

Jerome
Ep. 98 105n
John (b. of Antioch)
Ep. synodi Orientalium 80n
John of Beith Aphthonia
Vita Severi 77n
John of Ephesus
Historia Ecclesiastica 122, 139n208,
139n210, 144n
John Cassian
De incarnatione Christi 118n
John Chrysostom
De ascensione 105n
Ep. 2 ad Innocentium 87n
Serm. de cruce 105n
John Malalas
Chronographia 73n, 74
Julian (emperor)
Ep. 29 20n
Justinian (emperor)
Edictum contra Origenem 127
Ep. from Pontianus (b. of Africa) 128
Novellae
Nov. 37.5 112n
Nov. 37.8 112n
Nov. 131.1 202n
Leo I (b. of Rome)
Ep. 1 113n, 118
Ep. 2 113n, 118
Ep. 4 to bishops of Italy 148149
Ep. 7 50n67, 50n69
Ep. 15 to Turibius (b. of Astorga) 113n,
119n, 199n33, 199n35
Ep. 17 to bishops of Sicily 153154
Ep. 20 to Eutyches 101n
Ep. 21 from Eutyches 101, 216
Ep. 22 from Flavian (b. of Constantinople) 101, 216
Ep. 23 to Flavian 101
Ep. 26 from Flavian 101, 216
Ep. 28 (Tome) to Flavian 21, 101, 102104,
216217
Ep. 30 to Pulcheria 21
Ep. 63 to Galla Placidia 21
Ep. 64 to Licinia Eudoxia 21
Ep. 67 20n
Ep. 69 to Theodosius II 102n
263
Ep. 73 from Valentinian III and Marcian

102n
Ep. 80 20n
Ep. 85 20n
Ep. 109 to Julian (b. of Cos) 104, 119n
Ep. 123 to Eudocia 21
Ep. 124 to Palestinian monks 104
Ep. 129 105n
Ep. 137 178
Ep. 149 to Basil of Antioch et al. 105n,
106n
Ep. 150 to Basil of Antioch et al. 105n,
106n
Ep. 159 to Nicetas 39n
Ep. 165 (Second Tome) to Leo I (emperor)
2122, 104, 133
Ep. 166 to Neo (b. of Ravenna) 30
Ep. 167 to Rusticus (b. of Narbonne) 30,
179n
Ep. 168 121n
Serm. 68 50n
Serm. 9 50n65, 50n69
Serm. 10 38n, 50n
Serm. 11 50n
Serm. 16 49n, 50n66, 50n67, 50n69
Serm. 34 50n
Serm. 42 50n
Serm. 84 90n, 113, 200
Serm. 8694 50n
Libanius
Ep. 16 18n
Ep. 86 20n
Liber Pontificalis (LP) 42n22, 42n24, 49n,
50n, 51, 52, 60, 82n, 111, 113, 114, 151,
154n, 186n81, 186n82, 186n84, 188, 199n,
200n, 214, 215, 216, 217n, 218n, 220,
222n
Liberatus of Carthage
Breviarium 105n, 131
Marcellinus comes
Chronicon 73, 122
Michael the Syrian
Chronicon 73, 122, 131n, 137, 139n, 144, 145,
208
264
Nestorius (b. of Constantinople)

Bazaar of Heraclides 99
Ep. I to Celestine (b. of Rome) 30n
Ep. II to Celestine 30n
Ep. III to Celestine 30n
Ep. 35 to Caelestius 117n
Orosius (b. of Braga)
Commonitorium 119
Pelagius (monk)
Ep. ad Demetriadem 116n
Pelagius and John, deacons
Apophthegmata Patrum 222
Pelagius I (b. of Rome)
Ep. 4 to Sapaudus (b. of Arles) 187n
Ep. 5 to Sapaudus (b. of Arles) 186n, 189n,
221
Ep. 6 (MGH edn) to Valerian (patricius)
221
Ep. 6 to King Childebert 189n
Ep. 8 to King Childebert 189n
Ep. 9 to Sapaudus (b. of Arles) 187
Ep. 10 to bishops of Tuscia Annonaria
186n
Ep. 12 to Dulcitius (defensor of Apulia)
151n, 188n
Ep. 13 to Vitus (defensor) 188n
Ep. 17 to John (b. of Nola) 187n
Ep. 22 to Vincent et al. (bishops) 188n
Ep. 23 to clergy of Catana 191n
Ep. 26 to Hilaria and John 156n, 188n
Ep. 28 to Melleus (subdeacon) 188n
Ep. 29 to Dulcius (defensor of Apulia)
188n
Ep. 40 to Amabalis and Leontius
(bishops) 29
Ep. 42 to Opilio (defensor) 174n
Ep. 44 to John (defensor) 174n
Ep. 51 to Hostilius (bishop) 154n
Ep. 60 to Narses (patricius) 190n103,
190n104
Ep. 65 to Carellus (magister militum)
Ep. 69 to John (magister militum) 190n,
197n
Ep. 70 to Basil and Oclatinus (defensores)
190n106, 190n108
Ep. 71 to John (magister militum) 190n
Ep. 72 to Elpidius (b. of Catana) 174, 191n
Ep. 76 to Gurdimer (comes) 191n
Ep. 81 to Sergius (cancellarius) 188n
Ep. 82 to Severus (b. of Camerina) 187n
Ep. 85 to Boethius (praetorian prefect)

187n
Ep. 88 to Melleus (subdeacon) 188
Ep. 90 to Narses (patricius) 187n
Ep. 91 to Benegestus (defensor) 188n
Ep. 94 to Benignus (b. of Heracleia) 187n
Ep. 96 to Eleutherius (bishop) 188n
In defensione Trium Capitulorum 222
Pelagius II (b. of Rome)
Ep. 1 to Maurice (emperor) 196n
Peter Chrysologus
Ep. to Eutyches (= Leo I, Ep. 25) 216
Philostorgius
Historia ecclesiastica 12.3 79n
Photius (b. of Constantinople)
Bibliotheca 132n
Possidius
Vita Augustini
19.3 181n
28.10 121n
Praedestinatus 118
Procopius
Bella 73
Prosper of Aquitaine
Epitoma chronicon 41, 50n, 118n
Ps. Dionysius of Tel-Mahre
Chronicon 83n, 85
Ps. Joshua the Stylite
Chronicon 73n, 82, 8485, 177
Ps. Pelagius
De divitiis 115n
Ps. Zachariah Rhetor: see Zachariah
Scholasticus
Ruricius (b. of Limoges)
Ep. 2.8 34
Ep. 2.14 153
Ep. 2.15 to Ceraunia 21n
Ep. 2.6 to Chronopius (b. of Gemiliacum)
153n
Ep. 2.20 to Rusticus 47
Ep. 2.34 34
Ep. 2.36 34
Ep. 2.40 34
Ep. 2.51 153
Ep. 2.52 33
Ep. 2.65 33
Salvian of Marseille
Ad ecclesiam sive adv. avaritiam 172
Severus of Antioch
Ep. 1.7 to Castor (b. of Perga) 124

Ep. 1.9 to bishop of Tripolis 124
Ep. 1.17 to Misael (cubicularius) 149
Ep. 1.8 to Timostratus (dux) 149
Ep. 1.40 153
Ep. 1.52 to John and John 68n
Ep. 1.53 68n
Ep. 1.55 20n
Ep. 5.12 to John and John 67n148, 67n149,
76n, 83n
Ep. 8.5 67n
Ep. 34 67n, 68n
Ep. 35 to monks 27n, 68n
Ep. 61 to female monastics 27n, 68n
Ep. synodica 210
Epp. ad Sergium Grammaticum 210
Hom. 31 78
Hymn 256III 77
Hymn 257IIVI 77
Hymn 258IIIV 77
Hymn 259IVIII 77
Hymn 260VVIII 7778
Hymn 261VIIII 78
Sidonius Apollinaris (b. of Clermont)
Carmina 227
Ep. 1 79n
Ep. 3 33, 43n
Ep. 4 33
Ep. 5 33
Ep. 6 to Patiens (b. of Lyon) 33, 79n
Ep. 7 to Graecus (b. of Marseille) 33, 44n,
46n
Ep. 8 46n
Ep. 9 33, 46n
Liber contra impium Grammaticum 67n
Siricius (b. of Rome)
Ep. 6 52n
Socrates of Constantinople
Historia Ecclesiastica 7n, 4142, 47n, 98
99, 199n
Sozomen
Historia Ecclesiastica 79n, 194n
Symmachus (b. of Rome)
Ep. 1 52n
Ep. 7 from Ennodius 212
Ep. 8, Libellus of John the Deacon 212
Ep. 10 to Anastasius I 52n
Ep. 11 to exiled bishops in Africa 114
Ep. 12 from Dorotheus (b. of Thessalonica) 123, 212
Ep. 13 to bishops in the East 111
Ep. 17 from King Sigismund 212
265

Synesius of Cyrene (b. of Ptolemais)
Ep. 11 158n
Ep. 13 158n
Ep. 16 to Hypatia 158n
Ep. 23 to Diogenes 20n
Ep. 39 159n
Ep. 41 158n, 159n69, 159n70, 160n72,
160n74, 160n75, 160n76
Ep. 42 75, 159n69, 159n71, 160n, 161n
Ep. 48 to Anastasius (friend) 161n, 162n
Ep. 61 7576
Ep. 66 to Theophilus (b. of Alexandria)
75, 159n
Ep. 69 160n
Ep. 72 159n, 161n78, 161n79
Ep. 73 to Troilus (sophist) 80, 158n66,
158n67, 159n
Ep. 79 to Anastasius (friend) 159n, 161n
Ep. 80 159n
Ep. 89 158n62, n63
Ep. 90 to Theophilus (b. of Alexandria)
161n, 162163
Ep. 96 158n
Ep. 101 to Pylamenes 19n38, 19n39
Ep. 105 to Synesius brother 19n, 158n
Ep. 137 to Herculian 20n
Ep. 156 to Dometian (lawyer) 162
Theodoret (b. of Cyrrhus)
Ep. VIII 157n
Ep. XVII 94
Ep. XVIII to Areobindus 9596
Ep. XX 94
Ep. XXIII (XXII) to Arius (sophist) 62n
Ep. 11 112n
Ep. 12 112n
Ep. 22 27n
Ep. 18 to Areobindus (magister militum)
176n
Ep. 22 27n, 112n
Ep. 23 to Areobindus 27n, 9596, 112n
Ep. 29 to Apellio 27n, 63n, 64, 112n
Ep. 30 to Arius (sophist) 27n, 63n, 112n
Ep. 31 to Domnus (b. of Antioch) 27n,
63n, 112n
Ep. 32 to Theoctistus (b. of Beroea) 27n,
63n, 112n
Ep. 33 to Stasimus (comes) 27n, 64, 112n
Ep. 34 to Patricius (comes) 27n, 112n
Ep. 35 to Irenaeus (b. of Tyre) 27n, 64,
112n
266
Theodoret (cont.)
Ep. 36 to Pompeianus (b. of Emesa) 27n,
64, 112n
Ep. 37 to Neon (archon) 176n
Ep. 42 to Constantine (prefect) 64n, 94,
177n
Ep. 43 to Pulcheria (empress) 94, 177n
Ep. 44 94
Ep. 45 to Anatolius (patricius) 94, 177n
Ep. 47 to Proclus (b. of Constantinople)
94, 177n
Ep. 52 to Ibas (b. of Edessa) 27n, 65n138,
65n139, 112n
Ep. 53 to Sophronius (b. of Constantina)
27n, 65n138, 65n140, 112n
Ep. 70 to Eustathius (b. of Aigiai) 27n,
66n, 112n
Ep. 113 51n
Historia religiosa 96
Theodosius, patriarch
Theological Discourse 129, 138, 140143
Theophilus (b. of Alexandria)
Ep. fest. 16 196n, 205
Ep. fest. 17 196n, 205
Ep. fest. 19 205
Thucydides
Peloponnesian War 62
Timothy Aelurus (b. of Alexandria)
Ep. ad Constantinopolitanos 46n
libellus 133
Toledo homiliary 91
Valentinian III
Novellae 216
Nov. 18 50n
Nov. 27 178n
Nov. 31 178n
Nov. 33 83n
Nov. 35 178n37, 178n42, 166n
Victor (b. of Vita)
History 83
Victor of Tunnuna
Chron. ad a. 542 58n
Vigilius (b. of Rome)
Constitutum I 60, 196, 221
Constitutum II (Aetius) 60
Encyclical 59
Ep. 2 to Eutychius (b. of Constantinople)
(Scandala) 60n
Ep. 14 186n
Iudicatum 59
Vita Caesarii Arelatensis 42n
Vita Fulgentii 224
Vita Melaniae 40n, 62n
Vita Symeoni 73n
Zachariah Scholasticus
Historia Ecclesiastica 69n, 73n, 136
Zeno (emperor)
Henotikon 107108, 110, 113, 122124,
141
Zosimus
Historia nova 194n
Zosimus (b. of Rome)
Epp. 116, 215
Tractoria 116117
INDEX OF MODERN AUTHORS

Aldrete, G.S. 89n
Alfldy, G. 87, 87n
Allen, P. xi, xii, 1n1, 1n2, 5n, 6n, 8n, 9n, 12n,
13n12, 13n15, 14n, 18n, 20n, 22n, 24n65,
24n66, 37n, 38n, 45n41, 45n42, 54n, 61n,
66n, 67n, 68n, 73n, 75n, 76n, 77n30,
77n31, 82n, 92n, 106n, 109n, 110n, 116n,
118n, 123n, 125n, 126n, 129n149, 129n150,
137n199, 137n200, 138n206, 138n207,
140n213, 140n214, 141n215, 141n216,
141n218, 142n220, 142n221, 142n222, 143n,
144n225, 144n226, 144n227, 144n229,
144n230, 145n, 149n, 150n, 153n, 157n,
158n, 175n, 177n, 196n, 198n, 200n, 202n,
208n, 211n
Alpi, F. 66n, 77n, 78n, 149n, 211n
Amory, P. 113, 113n
Andreau, J. 18n, 182n
Ashbrook Harvey, S. 6n
Azma, Y. 51n, 62n, 63n127, 63n128, 63n129,
63n130, 64n131, 64n132, 64n133, 64n135,
64n136, 65n138, 65n139, 65n140, 66n, 94n,
95, 95n115, 95n117, 95n118, 95n120, 157n,
176n27, 176n28, 177n29, 177n30, 177n31, 211
Banev, K. 92n
Barclift, P.L. 104n
Bark, W. 117, 117n92, 117n93
Batiffol, P. 155n
Bethune-Baker, J.F. 55n
Bevan, G.A. 100n
Bianchi, U. 49n
Blaudeau, P. 44n, 46n44, 46n46, 107n41,
107n43, 131n, 134n, 137n
Blum, G.G. 65n
Bradley, K.R. 153n
Brandes, W. 72n, 89n
Brok, M.F.A. 92n
Brooke, C.N.L. 18n
Brooks, E.W. 20n, 24n, 27n80, 27n81, 45n,
66n, 67n148, 67n149, 67n150, 67n153,
68n154, 68n157, 68n158, 68n159, 68n160,
69n161, 69n163, 69n165, 73n, 76n, 77n,
83n, 124n129, 124n130, 126n, 139n208,
139n210, 140n211, 140n212, 144n, 149n13,
149n14, 153n, 210
Brown, P.R.L. xi, 2, 7n, 11n, 72n, 83, 83n, 116n,

150n, 171, 171n, 177, 180
Bundy, D.D. 141n
Burris, C. 77n
Cameron, A. 227n
Cameron, Av. 3n7, 3n8, 6n, 72n
Camplani, A. 92n
Caner, D. 180n, 202n
Casson, L. 15n
Chadwick, H. 45n, 101n, 119n99, 119n100,
119n104
Cimma, M.R. 174n
Claassen, J.-M. 44n
Comastri, A. 5n
Comparetti, D. 76n
Conring, B. 18n
Constable, G. 14n, 20n
Cooper, K. 12n, 116n, 173n10, 173n11, 173n12,
174n, 180n
Cotton, H. 62n
Cracco Ruggini, L. 159n, 174n
Croke, B. 73n, 77n
de Halleux, A. 46n, 123n
de Ligt, L. 66n
dellOsso, C. 126n
Delmaire, R. 44n35, 44n36, 45n, 54, 56n, 60n,
87n
Demacopoulos, G. 12n
Descotes, P. 22, 23n, 116n
De Vinne, M.J. 171n
Dey, H. 89n
Di Berardino, A. 138n, 148n
Diekamp, F. 127n
Diesner, H.J. 56n
Di Paola, L. 15n
Dirks, R. 5n
Divjak, J. 22, 22n, 150, 150n, 151, 152n, 153,
156n, 180, 183, 223, 223n40, 223n41, 224n
Dossey, L. 174n, 183n65, 183n69
Downey, G. 73n, 106n38, 106n39
Draguet, R. 68n, 125n
Ducloux, A. 47n50, 47n52, 47n53, 48n
Dunn, G.D. 4n, 8n, 12n, 13n17, 13n19, 39n, 51n,
150n, 194n, 214, 214n8, 214n10
268
index of modern authors
Dupont, A. 120n
Durliat, J. 79n, 82n, 86n, 89, 89n96, 89n98
Ebbeler, J. 14n
Ebied, R.Y. 46n, 138n, 145n, 206, 207
Ekonomou, A.J. 109n
Elm, E. 11n
Eno, R.B. 56n, 58n, 152, 152n28, 152n29,
152n30, 153n, 176, 176n, 223n
Ertl, N. 221n, 222n
Evieux, P. 23n, 92n, 93n107, 93n108, 93n109,
94n, 112n, 206
Fahrquarson, P. 5n
Favale, A. 205n
Festugire, A.-J. 133n, 194n
Fitzgerald, A.D. 51n, 158n, 159n, 160n, 162n,
163n, 223n
Folliet, G. 184n
Frakes, R.M. 150n
Frend, W.H.C. xii, 53n, 58n, 69n, 110n, 119n,
121n116, 121n117, 131n152, 131n153, 136n193,
136n194, 139n, 184n
Freu, C. 8n, 50n
Fuhrmann, H. 14, 14n, 214n
Gaddis, M. 6n, 103n, 120n
Garnsey, P. 79n, 81n, 174n
Garzya, A. 19n38, 19n39, 19n40, 20n41,
20n42, 75n, 76n26, 76n27, 80n, 158n62,
158n63, 158n65, 158n66, 158n67, 159n68,
159n69, 159n70, 159n71, 160n72, 160n73,
160n74, 160n75, 160n76, 161n78, 161n79,
161n80, 161n83, 161n84, 162n86, 162n87,
162n90, 162n92, 162n93, 162n94, 163n,
207
Gauge, V. 46n
Gibson, R. 23n, 25n
Gillett, A. 14n, 18n, 124n
Goodman-Tchernov, B. 89n
Gorce, D. 15, 40n, 62n
Grasmck, E. 44n
Graumann, T. 100n
Graus, F. 40n
Gregory, T.E. 100n
Grillmeier, A. xii, 49n, 54n, 57n, 59n, 60n,
66n, 68n, 69n, 75n, 103n, 105n, 106n,
107n, 109n, 123n121, 123n122, 123n124,
125n, 126n, 127n140, 127n141, 127n143,
128n144, 128n146, 128n147, 131n153,
131n154, 132n, 133n167, 133n169, 135n, 138n,
139n, 141n
Grodzynski, D. 7n
Guidoboni, E. 5n, 72, 72n, 73n, 74n, 76,
76n26, 76n28, 77n, 78n39, 78n41,
87
Haarer, F.K. 110n
Hahn, I. 95, 95n
Hanson, C.L. 148n
Harries, J. 13n, 174n, 177n, 182n, 184n, 227n
Hatlie, P. 2n, 14n
Hayward, C.T.R. 13n, 45n, 66n, 68n, 76n, 77n,
123n, 126n
Heather, P. 48n, 112n, 121n
Hellebrand, J. 175n, 180n, 182n59, 182n61,
184n, bibliography 246, 248, 251, 253
Hermann, T. 139n
Hillner, J. 12n, 45n, 116n, 173n10, 173n11,
173n12
Holman, S.R. 5n, 8n, 13, 13n, 79n, 157n
Hombergen, D. 127n
Honigmann, E. 45n, 62n, 66n145, 66n147,
139n, 144
Horn, C. 6n, 69n, 105n, 152n, 153n
Huebner, S.R. 154n, 156, 156n53, 156n54,
156n55
Humbert, M. 152n, 153n, 175n
Humfress, C. 150n, 151n, 174n
Humphries, M. 12n, 173n
Ihssen, B.L. 147n, 148n
James, N.W. 104n
Jasper, D. 14, 14n, 214n
Jastrzebowska, E. 46n
Kaufman, P.I. 174n, 181n
Kim, C.-H. 61n
Kinzig, W. 72n
Klingshirn, W. 4n, 39n8, 39n9, 42n, 111n,
228
Koch, H. 109n
Koder, J. 5n, 72n, 86n, 88n
Kolb, A. 5n, 15n
Kuhn, E.-M. 182n
Kulikowski, M. 86, 86n, 91n
Kulzer, A. 92n
Kurdock, A. 116n
Lacombrade, C. 159n
Laiou, A.F. 148n
Lamoreaux, J. 174n
Lancel, S. 185n

Lapeyre, G.G. 56n94, 56n95, 56n96, 56n97,
56n98, 112n
Lattke, M. 77n
Lebon, J. 66n, 67n, 68n, 74n
Lee, A.D. 80n
Lenski, N. 154n, 174n, 176, 176n, 181n50,
181n52, 182n59, 182n60, 182n61, 183n, 185n,
186n
Lepelley, C. 4n, 7n, 39n, 121n, 150, 150n,
153n, 157n, 174n, 175n19, 175n20, 177n,
184n
Leyerle, B. 15n
Leyser, C. 12n, 109n
Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 3n
Lieu, S.N.C. 49n, 50n, 51n
Lim, R. 99, 99n
Lizzi Testa, R. 12n, 15n, 174n
Louth, A. xii, 100n, 177n
Maassen, F. 16n
McBrien, R. 215, 215n
McGuckin, J. 99n6, 99n7, 100n9, 100n11,
123n
McLynn, N. 81n57, 81n58
Magdalino, P. 71n
Maier, H.O. 2, 2n
Malherbe, A.J. 14n, 16n
Maloney, R.P. 148n
Markus, R.A. 58n104, 58n105
Martin, A. 92n
Martin, H. 138n
Martindale, J. 95
Martyn, J.C.R. 1n, 88n89, 88n90
Maspero, J. 66n, 139n
Mathisen, R.W. 12n, 43, 43n30, 43n31, 43n32,
46n, 153n, 174n, 227
Mayer, C. 175n, 180, 180n, 181n, 182n60,
182n61, 183n66, 183n67, 184n, 185n,
223n
Mayer, W. 1n1, 1n2, 8n, 12n13n, 14n, 22n, 24n,
38n, 73n, 106n, 116n, 149n, 150n, 153n,
157n, 175n, 177n
Meier, M. 5n, 72, 84n, 86n, 89n, 110n, 125n,
126n
Menze, V.I. 45n40, 45n42, 66n, 124n125,
124n127, 126n136, 126n139
Merdinger, J.E. 184n
Milewski, I. 54n
Mitchell, L.C. 14n
Moeller, C. 123n
Moorhead, J. 172n
Moreau, D. 16n, 17n
269
Morello, R. 25n
Morey, A. 18n
Morgenstern, F. 12n
Moser, T. 148n
Mratschek, S. 2n, 15n24, 15n25
Mullett, M. 14n, 18n31, 18n32
Munier, C. 40n, 148n, 150n, 165n, 181n, 184n,
185, 185n
Neil, B. xi, 1n, 2n, 8n, 9n, 12n, 13n, 14n, 22n,
30n, 37n, 38n, 39n, 44n, 50n, 51n, 61n,
82n, 89n, 101n, 102n, 109n, 110n, 113n71,
113n72, 114n, 116n, 118n, 149n, 150n, 153n,
157n, 170n, 172n, 173n8, 173n10, 175n, 177n,
178n, 179n, 198n, 200n, 216n, 221, 222,
223
Neri, M. 12n, 226, 227
Noble, T.F.X. 31n, 186n, 193, 193n
Norton, P. 11, 11n
Ocker, C. 117n
Olster, D. 145n
Paoli-Lafaye, . 18n
Patlagean, E. 171, 171n, 180
Perrone, L. 130n
Petersen, J. 222, 222n
Pietri, L. 174n
Pietrini, S. 13n
Poster, C. 14n
Prvot, F. 46n
Price, R. 6n, 59n106, 59n109, 59n110, 59n111,
60, 60n113, 60n114, 60n116, 61n, 100n9,
100n10, 103n, 128n145, 128n146, 128n148,
155n
Pugliese, A. 184n
Purcell, N. 8, 8n
Quasten, J. 92n
Raikas, K. 174n, 175n, 176, 176n, 182n59,
182n60
Rammelt, C. 65n
Ramsey, B. 148n
Rapp, C. 11n, 15n, 47n, 161n, 173, 173n, 201,
202n47, 202n49, 203n
Rees, B.R. 115n, 116n, 172n
Rheindorf, T. 72n
Ricci, C. 114n
Richards, J. 58n, 172n, 218n
Rigsby, K.J. 168n
Roda, S. 61n
270
Rohr, C. 5n
Roques, D. 12n, 19n38, 19n39, 19n40, 20n41,
20n42, 75n24, 75n26, 76n, 80n, 158n61,
158n62, 158n63, 158n65, 158n66, 158n67,
159n68, 159n69, 159n70, 159n71, 160n72,
160n73, 160n74, 160n75, 160n76, 161n78,
161n79, 161n80, 161n82, 161n83, 161n84, 162,
162n86, 162n87, 162n88, 162n90, 162n92,
162n93, 162n94, 163n, 207
Roug, J. 39n, 49n, 183n66, 183n67, 184n
Roux, R. 149n
Sghy, M. 12n
Salzman, M. 6n, 12n, 13, 13n
Schipper, H.G. 48n, 49n, 50n66, 50n67,
50n70, 119n, 199n33, 199n35
Schnitzler, T. 131n, 132n, 134n, 135n
Schor, A.M. 61n, 63n, 94n
Schwartz, E. 59n109, 59n110, 59n111, 101n,
104n, 107n40, 107n42, 131n155, 131n156,
132n, 134n176, 134n177, 134n180, 155n, 206,
219n
Schwartz, J. 54n85, 54n86, 55n
Scott, R. 73n, 79n, 155n
Selb, W. 175n
Seleznyov, N.N. 55n
Serfass, A. 48n, 152n
Sessa, K. 12n, 39n4, 39n5, 39n6, 39n7, 111n,
173n11, 173n12, 174n, 186n, 216n, 219n
Shanzer, D. 12n, 41, 41n18, 41n19, 41n20, 115n,
228
Shaw, B.D. 120n106, 120n110, 120n111
Silva Tarouca, C. 20n, 216n
Sitzler, S. 8n
Sizgorich, T. 100n
Sonnabend, H. 5n, 74, 74n, 84n, 89, 89n
Sotinel, C. 11n, 15n25, 15n26, 45n, 58n103,
58n104, 58n105, 59n, 109n, 128n, 155,
155n46, 155n47, 159n, 177n, 186n81,
186n84, 221n31, 221n33, 222n34, 222n37
Spadavecchia, C. 61n, 94n
Stathakopoulos, D. 5n, 71n, 72, 76, 79n44,
79n45, 79n46, 80n47, 80n50, 80n52,
81n53, 81n55, 81n56, 81n58, 82n, 83n65,
83n66, 83n70, 84n, 86n82, 86n83, 87,
87n86, 87n87, 88n89, 88n90, 88n92,
88n93, 89n, 94n, 96, 96n
Sterk, A. 11n, 15n
Stewart, R. 76n
Sykutris, J. 14n
Szidat, J. 183n, 184n
Tanaseanu-Dbler, I. 159n
Taylor, J. 82n, 163n, 166, 166n110, 166n113, 167,
167n115, 167n118, 179n44, 179n45
Telelis, I.G. 5n, 71n1, 71n2, 72, 72n, 87, 88, 88n,
91, 94n, 96n
Thiel, A. 21n, 23n, 25n, 29n, 40n, 41n, 42n,
47n, 48n55, 48n56, 51n75, 51n76, 51n78,
52n, 108n44, 108n45, 108n46, 108n47,
109n, 110n52, 110n53, 110n55, 110n56,
110n57, 111n, 114n76, 114n80, 123n, 124n126,
124n127, 151n, 163n, 164n99, 164n100,
164n101, 164n104, 165n105, 165n106,
165n107, 165n108, 165n109, 166n113,
166n114, 167n116, 167n117, 168n120,
168n122, 168n123, 168n124, 168n126,
168n127, 169n128, 169n129, 169n132,
169n133, 170n135, 170n136, 170n137, 172n,
177n, 179n45, 179n46, 195n, 196n, 197n,
198n26, 198n27, 198n28, 199n, 217, 218, 219,
220
Thompson, G. 12n
Tibiletti, C. 56n, 57n
Tilley, M. 121, 121n
Tomkins, I.G. 61n, 94, 94n113, 94n114, 95, 95n
Tornau, C. 20n
Traina, G. 5n
Trapp, M.B. 20n
Uhalde, K. 12n, 157n, 174n, 175n, 184n
Urbainczyk, T. 61n, 94n
Vallejo Girvs, M. 44n35, 44n36, 45n, 54n
van Oort, J. 48n, 49n, 50n66, 50n67, 50n70,
119n, 199n33, 199n35
Van Roey, A. 24n, 45n, 125n, 127n, 129n, 137n,
138n206, 138n207, 140n213, 140n214,
141n215, 141n216, 141n218, 142n220,
142n221, 142n222, 143n, 144n225, 144n226,
144n227, 144n229, 145n, 208n
Van Rompay, L. 77n
van Waarden, J. 13n
Vollmann, B. 119n
Wagner, G. 54n
Wagner, M.M. 13n, 61n
Watts, E. 80n, 90
Wermelinger, O. 49n, 116n, 148n
Wessel, S. 7n, 53n, 92n, 171n
Whitby, M. 6n, 54n, 55n89, 55n90, 55n91,
73n, 74n, 85n, 100n9, 100n10, 122n, 131n
Wickham, L.R. 8n, 46n, 100n, 138n, 145n,
155n, 198n, 206, 207

Wiemer, H.-U. 72n, 81n, 82n, 83, 84
Williams, R. 127n
Winkelmann, F. 145n
Wirbelauer, E. 44n, 216n, 219n
Witschel, C. 3n, 13, 13n
Wood, I. 12n, 41n18, 41n19, 41n20
Youssef, Y.N. 45n, 76n

Zelzer, M. 14n
Zettl, E. 60n
271
INDEX OF PEOPLE, PLACES AND THINGS

Abraham (OT figure) 63, 141
Abundantius (African cleric) 184
Acacius (b. of Amida) 4142
Acacius (b. of Beroea) 212
Acacius (b. of Constantinople) 107111, 124,
209, 198
Acacian schism 6, 23, 29, 31, 34, 97, 107
111, 113, 122, 151, 196, 198
letter-collection 209
Acacius (b. of Melitene) 209
Adelphius (b. of Arabissus) 132n
adoptionism 99
Arius (sophist) 62, 63
Aeschylus (playwright) 63
Aetius (archdeacon of Constantinople) 60
61
Africa see North Africa
Africa proconsularis 48, 112, 121
Agapitus I (b. of Rome) 69, 112, 114
Agathias (historian) 73
Agilulf (Lombard king) 42
Agnellus (b. of Ravenna) 43, 89
Agnellus (deacon, Verulana) 151
Agnoetai 97, 125126, 129, 138, 141
Alaric (Visigothic general) 90n, 113, 194, 200
Albanus (trader) 187
Alcinoos (Homeric figure) 63
Alemanni 115
Alexander (b. of Hierapolis) 26, 178
Alexandria 7n, 19, 23, 62, 66, 104, 105, 112, 125,
130131, 133134, 158, 196n
patriarchate of 24, 27, 91, 92, 98, 107, 137
145, 155
schism with Antioch 129
al-Harith (Arab leader) 139
alienation of church property 8
al-Moundhir (Arab leader) 45, 140
almsgiving 39, 51, 148
stolen goods as 154
almshouse 174, 202
Alps 37
Alypius (b. of Caesarea Cappadocia) 135
Ambrose (b. of Milan) 40, 46n, 87, 105n, 148
Amphilochius (b. of Side) 132133, 136137
Anastasia (correspondent of Hormisdas) 21

Anastasius (presb. of Constantinople) 9899
Anastasius I (b. of Antioch) 26
Anastasius I (b. of Rome) 49
Anastasius I (emperor) 109110, 111, 113, 122
124
Anastasius II (b. of Rome) 31, 52n, 110, 114,
195
Anastasius (cleric, Italy) 166167
Anastasius (friend of Synesius) 161
anathema 47n, 142, 184, 188, 198
anathemata/Twelve Chapters of Cyril 100,
103, 141
Anatolius (b. of Constantinople) 101, 131n,
133, 134, 137
Anatolius (patricius) 177
Anatolius (presb., Italy) 165
Andreas (b. of Samosata) 26
Andromachus (senator) 81
Andronicus (governor of Pentapolis) 75, 80,
159163
annona 5n, 82
pork dole 156
Anthemius (praetorian prefect) 158
Anthrib (Atrib) 76
anthropmorphites 27
anti-Chalcedonians see monophysite
controversy
anti-Christ 71, 79, 104
Antioch 1, 53, 61, 66, 68, 74, 77, 106, 194
bishops/see of 54n, 66, 67, 106, 123,
149
Church of the Forty Martyrs 106
Great Church of 75
Mt Stavrin 74
patriarchate of 24, 45, 100, 137145
schism with 129
Theoupolis 74
Antoninus (b. of Fussala) 32, 150n, 184185,
196n
Apellio (functionary) 63
aphthartodocetism 33, 57, 97, 125
apocrisiarii 198
index of people, places and things

Apollinaris of Laodicea 101, 113
Apollinarianism 99
Arabia 67, 86, 89, 139
Arabs 3
Arbogastes (general) 6n
archeological evidence 25, 72, 89, 119n
architectural evidence 89
Areobindus (landowner, mag. mil.) 95, 176
Arius 111, 113
Arianism 31, 32, 33, 34, 56, 97, 111115
Arians 30, 31, 34, 42, 47, 48, 52, 92, 94, 98,
121, 198
anti-Arian writings 46
Arles 34, 43
Armenia 1, 125
Armenia Secunda 132n
Asellus (archdeacon, Italy) 163
Asia Minor 127
Astorga (Spain) 119
asylum-seekers 4, 9, 37, 4752, 117, 161, 163,
168, 193, 200
Athanasius (b. of Alexandria, 4th c) 23, 46n,
99, 105n
Athanasius (tritheist monk) 139
Athanasius of Nisibis (presb.) 2425
Atticus (b. of Constantinople) 201
Attila the Hun 41, 113
Augustine of Hippo 12, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 31
32, 39, 40, 49, 51, 57, 61, 105n, 112, 115121,
148154, 156, 171, 174, 175177, 179, 180186,
196, 197, 199, 200
Aurelius (b. of Carthage) 33, 199
Auvergne 43
Auxerre (church of) 153
Auxilius (b. of Mauretania Caesariensis)
184
Avitus (b. of Vienne) 12, 34, 41, 48n, 114115,
196, 200
Avulus (hostage) 41
Bagai (Numidia) 120
bandits 37
barbarians 5455
barbarian invasion 4, 6, 7, 27, 30, 53, 61
66, 80, 133, 158
Bari (church of) 189
Basil (b. of Caesarea) 8, 19, 21n, 87, 147, 160n
Basil (praetorian prefect) 188
273
Basiliscus (general, usurper) 107

his Antencyclical 107n
his Encyclical 107
Belisarius (general) 59
Benedict I (b. of Rome) 28
Benedict of Aniane 132
Beneventum 167, 168
Benegestus (defensor) 189
Benignus (b. of Heracleia) 187
Berber Ausurians 159
Beroea 64
bilinguals 57, 61, 63, 104
Bithynia 108
blacklisting 198 see also anathema, diptychs
Black Sea 123
Blemmyes (barbarians) 54
Bne (Africa) 150n
Boethius (prefect, Africa) 187
Boniface I (b. of Rome) 28, 185
Boniface II (b. of Rome) 28, 122
Boniface (prefect, Africa) 187
books
access to 53, 67
burning of 51, 69, 199
Bordeaux 46
Bretons 43
bribery 8
Britain 118
Brundisium 51
bullying (spiritual) 109, 196
Burgundians 33, 34, 41
Byzacena (North Africa) 56
Byzantium 109
Byzantine reconquest 112, 114, 121
Byzantine writers/canonists 148
Caelestius (Pelagian) 116, 117
Caesarea
Basiliades 47n
Caesarius (b. of Arles) 42, 200
Cagliari 56
canon law 2930, 47n
Cappadocia 5n, 8, 13, 81
Capreolus (b. of Carthage) 33
captives 7, 39n
capture of freeborn persons 147, 183
see also prisoners of war
Carcassonne 46
274
Carthage 56, 61, 62, 6364, 112

church in 121
conference of 412ce 120
conquest of (439) 194
Cassidorus (senator) 132
Castor (b. of Perga) 124
Catana 148, 174, 190191
Cedrenus (historian) 73
Celestiacus (refugee) 6265
Celestine (presb., Italy) 164
Celestine I (b. of Rome) 23, 30, 31, 99, 103, 117,
164n, 185
censorship 197
Ceraunia (friend of Ruricius) 21
Cerdo (heretic) 119n
Chalcedon (Council of) passim
Chalcedonian restoration 66
Church of St Euphemia 59
Chalcedonians see monophysite controversy
Chersonese 46
Childebert (Lombard king) 189, 195
children 7, 30n, 32, 43, 62, 65, 82, 151153, 157,
158, 160, 166167, 175
China 49n
Christotokos 30n
chronicles 2, 3, 25, 44, 7196, 106, 122, 155,
193, 197
Chronopius (b. of Gemiliacum) 153
Chryseros/Chrysoretes (eunuch) 155n
church finances 4041
church income 166
church plate 3940, 42 see also vessels
(sacred)
church property 153154, 157
Cicero, M.T. 15, 16, 18, 120n
Cilicia 177
bishops of 135
Circumcellions 32, 120
Cirta (church in) 121
citizenship 38, 39, 51
Classicianus (comes) 184
clerical abuses 30, 32, 147, 163, 184185, 197
Clermont-Ferrand 43, 79
climate change 5, 9, 71, 88, 89
Clothilde (Merovingian queen) 114
Clovis (Merovingian king) 34, 110, 114115
Codex encyclius (CEn) see index of ancient
sources
cold (extreme) 71
Collectio Avellana 186
Collectio Dionysiana 170

Collectio Sangermanensis 131, 132
Collects 50n
coloni 30, 47n
comes Africae 32
comes Orientis 200, 202n
comites 201
Commodian (poet) 148
confiscation 199
Conon (b. of Tarsus) 142
Constantine I (emperor) 154, 173, 174
Constantine (defensor) 189
Constantine (prefect) 177
Constantinople 1, 5n, 24, 45, 48, 5861, 66,
69, 76, 82, 85, 99, 117, 123125, 128, 137
145, 155, 160, 161162, 163 see also New
Rome
Church of Sts Peter and Paul 5960, 155
imperial chancellery of 131
monastery of Hormisdas 155
Panhellenion 19
patriarchs/see of 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, 106,
111, 123, 199
Constantius II (emperor) 111
Constantius of Lyon (presb.) 25n
Corinth 135
corpses (disposal of) 82, 85
corruption 7, 80, 147, 154157, 163, 176, 177
Councils 199
acta of 24, 26, 40, 98, 102, 103, 109, 117, 135,
136, 199
canons of 28, 40, 106, 109, 148n, 178, 180,
202
Arles 314 ce 40n
Arles 470 ce 118
Carthage 348ce 184
Carthage 401ce 184
Carthage 411ce 119
Carthage 419ce 148
Chalcedon 451ce 6, 7, 14, 26, 45, 53,
57, 5861, 97145, 199
Clichy 626627ce 40n
Constantinople 381ce 98, 99, 111, 141
Constantinople 553 ce 6, 60, 97, 127
128, 199n
Ephesus 431 ce 6, 23, 24, 26, 45, 80, 97,
100, 117118, 141, 155
Ephesus 449 ce (Robber Council) 6,
101102, 134, 199
Lyon 470/471ce 118
Nicaea 325 ce 106, 121n, 133, 134, 135,
136, 141, 148

Orange 529ce 118
Thela 418ce 165n
Toledo 589ce 115
Tours 567 ce 40
containment 195, 197
corruption 153154, 158170, 193
Cremona 42
Cresconius (estate supervisor) 183
Crispinus (Donatist b.) 32
Crispinus (b., Italy) 167
curiales 27, 62, 64, 159, 160, 162, 168, 169, 171,
177, 182, 201202
Cyprian (Libyan bishop, refugee) 65
Cyrenaica 158, 160
Cyril of Alexandria 7n, 8, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30n,
46n, 53, 81, 86, 90, 9194, 96, 98145, 155,
156, 199
see also anathemata/Twelve Chapters
Cyrrhestica 94
Cyrrhus 62n, 6366, 176, 177
Cyrus (b. of Edessa) 85
Dacia Ripensis 133
Dalmatius (archimandrite) 202
Damian (b. of Alexandria) 26, 144145
Danube 37
Dardania (Illyricum) 108
Datius (b. of Milan) 59
defensores civitatis 7, 150, 190, 201
defensores ecclesiae 7, 150151, 166, 198, 201
Demetrias (d. of Juliana Aniciana) 116
demonizing strategy 51, 109, 160
Demosthenes (governor, Syria) 82
Didymus of Alexandria 128
Diogenes (friend of Synesius) 20
Dionysius Exiguus (monk, compiler) 170
Dioscorus (b. of Rome) 28
Dioscorus I (b. of Alexandria) 101, 105, 111,
119n, 124, 130
diplomatic embassies 41, 59, 101, 104n, 110,
111, 124, 151, 173, 194, 195, 198
diptychs 60, 105, 108, 110, 124, 130, 163 (?), 198
Documenta monophysitica see index of
ancient sources
domestic violence see violence
Domnus (b. of Antioch) 63
Donatism 97, 119121
Donatists 22, 32, 48, 112, 120, 130, 156, 200
275
Donatus (proconsul) 323

Dorotheus (African layman) 182183
Dorotheus (b. of Marcianopolis) 213
drought 5, 13, 30, 71, 81, 83
Dulcitius/Dulcius? (defensor of Apulia) 188
dust-veil event 71, 88
Easter 23, 34, 91, 92n, 105, 133, 164
earthquakes 5, 26, 71, 7279, 83, 84, 86, 90,
159, 193, 194, 200
ecclesiastical history 3
ecclesiastical law see legal system
Edessa 82, 84, 177
edicts (imperial) 47
Egypt 23, 24, 37, 45, 46, 5455, 66, 83,
9194, 98, 103, 124, 125, 133, 138, 140,
156
Elephantine (Egypt) 55
Elpidius (b. of Catana) 174n, 190191
embezzlement see corruption
Emesa 65
Emilia Romagna 80
Ennodius (b. of Pavia) 24, 31, 111
Ephrem of Amida (b. of Antioch) 25, 26,
7475, 79, 122, 126, 132, 194, 200
epidemic disease 5, 7, 71, 76, 82, 8386, 87,
90, 96
epigraphic evidence 73, 75, 8586, 89
Epiphanius (b. of Constantinople) 209
Epiphanius (b. of Pavia) 24, 40, 41
Epiphanius (translator) 132
Epirus Nova (bishops of) 135
episcopal elections 7, 11, 52n, 111, 140, 144n,
163, 191, 197
eschatology 7172, 80
Etruria 148
Eucharistus (would-be b.) 154, 169, 170
Eucherius (b. of Lyon) 226
Eudocia (widow of Theodosius II) 21
Eugenius (b. of Seleucia) 141143
Eugenius (pagan intellectual) 6n
Eulogius (b. of Alexandria) 26, 122, 132
Eunomius (b. of Amida) 141
Eurich (Visigothic king) 46, 114
Eusebius (b. of Caesarea) 99
Eusebius (b. of Galatia) 65
Eusebius (official) 156
Eustathius (b. of Aigai) 6566
Eustochius (lawyer, Africa) 175176
Eustorgius (b. of Milan) 41
Eutherius (b. of Tyana) 213
276
Eutropius (b. of Valence) 229

Eutyches (archimandrite of Constantinople)
100104, 111, 113, 119n, 202
Eutychianists 46, 103, 107
Eutychianism 97, 103, 111
Eutychian controversy 6, 34
Eutychius (b. of Constantinople) 60
Evagrius of Pontus 128
Evagrius Scholasticus 54, 55, 73, 74, 84, 85,
105, 122, 131n, 133, 136137
evergetism 115, 171, 173
excommunication 17, 47, 53, 108, 111, 130, 142,
154, 155, 160161, 164, 170, 185
exiles 1, 4, 33, 37, 38, 42, 4447, 50, 76, 83, 87,
107, 114, 121, 124, 130, 140, 193, 196, 200
Fabiola (Roman laywoman) 184
fairs 66
Falerio (Picenum Suburbicarium) 166
famine 3, 5, 13, 71, 7983, 84, 93, 96, 156, 158,
159, 160n, 186, 193, 200 see also foodshortages
Faustinian (cleric, Italy) 167
Faustinus (archdeacon, Italy) 179
Faustus (defensor ecclesiae) 154, 169, 170
Faustus (b. of Milevis) 49, 51n
Faustus (b. of Riez) 12, 33, 43, 46, 114, 118, 196
Felix I (b. of Rome) 103
Felix II (b. of Rome) 111, 195
Felix III (b. of Rome) 23, 29, 31, 107, 109, 113n,
151
Felix IV (b. of Rome) 122
Ferrandus (deacon, Carthage) 56
fire 71, 75, 93, 94, 156, 159
Firmus (b. of Caesarea) 26, 8081, 86
Flavian (b. of Constantinople) 45, 101, 102
floods 30, 71, 89, 193
Florentius (presb.) 43
food-shortages 7, 27, 37, 75, 81, 87, 88, 9495,
194, 201
forgeries 28n, 154
Franco-Visigothic war 115
Franks 43, 59, 114
Fravitta (b. of Constantinople) 108, 201
Fulgentius (b. of Ruspe) 21, 3233, 47, 5657,
112, 196
letter-collection 56, 224
Galatia 65
Galatia Prima 135
Galatians 39, 183
Galicia 118119
Galla (widow) 21
Galla Placidia (m. of Valentinian III) 21
Gallic bishops 12, 43, 46, 171
Gallinicus (Roman general) 42
Gangra 46, 106
Gaudentius (b. of Donatists) 120
Gaul 4n, 12, 28, 31, 3335, 39n, 41, 4244, 97,
112, 114, 115118, 121, 163, 187, 200
Geiseric (Vandal king) 41, 48, 112, 121n
Gelasius I (b. of Rome) 13, 21, 28, 29, 31, 40,
47, 48n, 51, 8182, 83, 86, 108, 109, 113, 147,
154, 157, 161170, 172, 173, 178, 179, 180, 189,
195196, 197, 198, 199, 200
Geneva 34
George of Cappadocia (b. of Alexandria) 156
Germanic kings 24
Germanic tribes 112
Geruntius (b. of Valva) 166
gifts/donations 99, 198, 200
clothing 37, 42, 48, 52, 53, 114, 200
food 30n, 37, 48, 51, 53, 200
furnishings 155
gold 155
grain 30n
money 30n, 37, 42, 48, 52, 53, 114, 200
oil 30n
relics 42, 52, 114, 200
water 51
gnosticism 48, 49n
Godescalc (husband of Lombard princess)
42
Goths 7, 31, 33, 43, 46, 79, 80, 113, 155, 173, 174,
186
Gothic count (zeja) 167
Graecus (b. of Marseille) 43
grain supply 5, 79
graves (pre-Christian) 82
Great Oasis see Western Oasis
Gregory (b. of Antioch) 26, 85
Gregory (b. of Nazianzus) 8, 46n, 99, 105n,
155
Gregory (b. of Nyssa) 8, 19, 46n, 147
Gregory Thaumaturgus 46n
Gregory the Great (b. of Rome) 1, 14, 25, 28,
29, 30n, 40n, 48n, 52, 87, 109n, 114, 121, 126,
191
Gundobad (Burgundian king) 34, 114

hagiography 2, 25, 40, 56, 71, 7396, 197
Merovingian 40n
hail 30, 71, 94, 156
heat (extreme) 71
Hebrew Scriptures 171
hegoumenos (controller) 5455
Helenopontus 136
Helladius (b. of Tarsus) 26
Helladius (official) 81
Hellespont (bishops of) 135
Henotikon see Zeno (emperor)
Heraclianus (comes Africae) 79
Hereleuva (m. of Theodoric) 21, 172, 196
heresy 6, 31, 32, 97, 98, 110, 111130
heresiology 119, 198
Hilary (b. of Poitiers) 105n
Hilary (b. of Rome) 217
Hilary (layman) 22
Hilderic (Vandal king) 112
Hippo Regius 120, 151, 156
church in 121, 182
clergy of 183
histories 2, 25, 41, 44, 71, 7396, 87, 106, 193,
197
Holy Cross (feast of) 7778
Holy Thursday 105
holy war 197
Homer 62
homilies 1, 2, 8, 13, 18, 23, 25, 90, 91, 147,
200
homoian Christianity 110, 121
homousian Christianity 121n
Honoratus (catechumen) 2223
Honoratus (Donatist bishop) 32
Honorius (emperor) 117, 194
Hormisdas (b. of Rome) 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 52,
111, 113, 195, 196, 198, 199
his libellus/Formula 124
Hormisdas (deacon) 42, 114
human trafficking 151152
Huns 7, 30, 194, 200
hymns 7779, 85, 89, 90, 200
Hypatia (philosopher/mathematician) 158
Ibas (b. of Edessa) 58, 65, 127, 199
Iberian peninsula 49
Illyricum 123
incest 156157
indentured labour 7, 32, 147, 152153, 157
indices (of forbidden books) 198, 199
277
inheritance see legal system

Innocent I (b. of Rome) 13, 21, 28, 30, 39, 87,
116, 119, 150151, 194
Innocentius (b. of Maroneia) 126
Ireland 118
Irenaeus (b. of Tyre) 6465
Isaac (archimandrite) 202
Isaac (OT figure) 141
Isaiah (OT figure) 85
Isauria 68, 106
Italy 4n, 7, 8, 28, 30, 31, 42, 48, 49, 82, 97, 112,
113, 117, 118, 148, 163, 173, 186, 187
Jacob Baradaeus (b. of Edessa) 126, 139142
Jacobite church 127
Jeremiah (OT figure) 85
Jerome 13, 18n, 28, 105n
Jerusalem 62, 104, 133
patriarchate of 123
Jews 7, 27, 48, 53, 92, 112, 121, 168, 199
Joel (OT figure) 85
John and John (representatives of Severus of
Antioch) 68, 76
John (archdeacon, Italy) 166
John (b. of Antioch) 24, 26, 8081, 86, 100,
104
John (b.? of Spoleto) 168169
John (magister militum) 190
John (b. of Nola) 187188
John (vicarianus) 186
John I (b. of Rome) 28, 45, 122
John II (b. of Rome) 112, 122
John II of Cappadocia (patr. of Constantinople) 209
John III (b. of Ravenna) 43
John III (b. of Rome) 28, 122
John Cassian 118
John Chrysostom 1, 87, 98, 105n, 171
John Malalas 73, 122
John of Ephesus (historian) 82, 84, 85, 122,
126, 139n, 144
John of Tella 126
John Talai 107
John the Lame (presb.) 144
John the Grammarian 67
Julian (b. of Brundisium) 51
Julian (b. of Eclanum) 117, 118
278
Julian (b. of Halicarnassus) 57, 68, 125

Julianism 129
Julian (b. of Tabia) 132n
Julian of Cos 104
Julian (presb. of Tarsus) 153
Juliana Anicia 21
Juliana Aniciana (m. of Demetrias) 116
Julius (b. of Rome) 46n, 103
Justin I (emperor) 45, 66, 124
Justin II (emperor) 129, 139, 143
Justinian (emperor) 57, 5861, 6869, 78
79, 112, 114, 121, 123129, 151, 155, 156, 167n,
199n, 202
Justinianic pandemic 8486
Nachleben of 84
Justus (b.) 151
Justus (b. of Terracina?) 165
Juvenal (b. of Jerusalem) 62, 130, 133
Kaiserkritik 84
Kellia (s. of Alexandria) 69
kidnapping 152
Latinitas 33
Laurentian schism see schism
Laurentius (b. of Siena?) 150151
Laurentius (defensor) 151
legal system 8, 150, 151, 157, 158, 160, 166169,
174175, 177, 185, 189, 193, 197
audientia episcopalis 8, 174186, 189, 191,
202n
canon law 164
ecclesiastical law 157, 167, 193, 197
inheritance 163, 167168, 196
interdiction 196
Judaic 171
ius postliminii 39
manumission 183
mediation 177179
Lent 23, 91, 92
Lenten fast 92, 93
Lenten repentance 94
Leo Magnus (b. of Rome) 13, 20, 2122, 28,
29, 30, 31, 39, 49n, 50, 51, 90n, 98, 100
105, 109, 113, 118, 119, 121, 133, 137, 147149,
153, 154, 171, 178, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199,
200
delegation to Huns 41, 194
Leo (praetor) 191
Leo I (emperor) 104106, 131137, 167n

Leontius (corr. of Faustus of Riez) 118
Leontius (presb., Italy) 165
Leovigild (Iberian king) 115
letters
archiving/filing 23, 25, 2829 see also
papal scrinium
bearers of 15, 20, 23, 29n, 34, 38, 43, 190,
197, 198
compilations 15
confidentiality of 20
length of 2122
postal system 15, 98
public reading of 1920
types
canonical letter 137
commentariola 18n
commonitorium 17, 23
consolatio 9, 16, 21, 68, 195n
constitutum 17
edicta 138, 142
entolika see mandata
epistula decretalis 17, 163, 169170, 196
epistula encyclica 17, 130, 137, 155
epistula festalis 17
epistula synodalis 17
epistula synodica 17, 137, 196, 198
hybrid 2123
indiculi 1718
letters of friendship 16, 21, 33, 195n
letters of recommendation 16, 27, 29,
33, 38, 49, 52, 53, 6166, 112, 172,
180, 195n, 197
libellus 17, 18n, 23
mandata 137138
paschal/festal letter 17, 23, 27, 9194,
112, 130, 196
relatio 17
suggestio 17
syndoktika see edicta
volumen 18n
Levant 89
libellus see letters
Libanius (pagan) 18, 19, 20, 87
Liberatus (deacon) 58n, 105, 131
Liberius (prefect) 41n
Libya 61, 62, 108, 158, 159
Licinia Eudoxia 21
Licinius (African Jew) 182
Limoges 46
liturgy 193, 195, 200 see also hymns
Lombard invasions 42, 114, 174, 196

Longinus (b. of Nubia) 140
Lupercalia 81
Lyon 34, 43
Macedonians 98, 112
Macedonius (vicar of Africa) 181
magic 163, 169 see also sorcery
Malalas see John Malalas
Malasuintha (Lombard queen) 42
Mamertus (b. of Vienne) 200
Mani (Babylonian) 48, 50n, 113
Manicheism 6, 49n, 97
anti-Manichean documents 50n
crypto-Manicheism 117
Manichean writings 199
Manichees 31, 4853, 119n, 121, 130, 200
Mantua 42
Mapinius (b. of Reims) 229
Marcellinus (comes) 73, 122
Marcellinus (exarch) 120
Marche, the 80
Marcian (emperor) 102, 105, 132, 133, 134, 178,
202
Marcion (heretic) 119n
Mari the Persian 60
Maria (African refugee) 6566
Marinian (b. of Ravenna) 42
Marius Mercator 117
Mark (presb., Italy) 164
marriage cases 39
Marseilles 118
Martyrius (b. of Acheruntia?) 164, 165
Martyrius (b. of Antioch) 106
Martyrius (b. of Gortyna) 136
Mauretania 121
Maurice (emperor) 196
Maxima (illustris et magnifica, Italy) 166
Maximian (b. of Bagai) 120
Maximian (b. of Constantinople) 208
Maximian (refugee) 62
Maximianists (Donatist schismatics) 121
Maximianus (b. of Anazarbus) 26
Maximus of Pavia 41
Mazici (barbarians) 54
Melania the Younger 62n, 115
Meletius (b. of Mopsuestia) 26
Melleus (subdeacon) 188
Menas (b. of Constantinople) 58
merchants 66
279
Merovingians 110
Michael the Syrian (chronicler) 73, 122, 131n,
137, 139n, 144145
micro-management 31, 32, 186, 191, 201
Milan 59
mines (relegation to) 60n
Misael (cubicularius) 149
Misenus (bishop) 110, 198
Moderatus (lessee of papal estate) 164
Moesia 133
monasteries 91, 93, 125, 128, 164, 168, 170, 173,
174, 180, 202
confinement in 4445
monasticism 11
monks 98, 104, 105, 108, 111, 118, 123, 124, 129,
131, 141, 151, 174, 180n, 196n, 202
monophysite controversy 6, 2627, 31, 45,
46, 57, 58, 6669, 97145
Montanus (b. of Toledo) 229
murder 104, 106, 133134, 147, 161, 163, 164
Narses (Byzantine general) 186
Narses (patricius) 187, 190
natural disasters 4, 5n, 8, 9, 30, 7196, 97, 122,
130, 193194, 197, 200, 201
neo-Chalcedonianism 97, 123
Neon (archon) 176
Nero (emperor) 84
Nestorian controversy 6
Nestorius (b. of Constantinople) 26, 30n,
5355, 56, 68, 98100, 103, 104, 117, 124,
196
Nestorians 31, 53
Nestorianism 97, 103
neo-Nestorianism 128
New Rome 98, 103
Nicene Christianity 111
Nicephorus Callistus 94
Nicetius (b. of Trier) 229
non-Chalcedonians see monophysite
controversy
North Africa 4n, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 39n, 42,
4647, 48, 49, 51, 52, 5759, 6166, 81, 83,
97, 107, 112, 114, 115121, 150, 151, 155, 175,
183184, 199
Novatians 27, 92, 98, 112, 199
Novatus (b. of Sitifis) 182
Nubia 127
Numidia 121, 185
numismatic evidence 89
nuns 124, 183 see also women
280
obnoxii 164, 165, 166

Odovacer (Ostrogothic king) 188
oeconomici (stewards) 178
Old Rome 98, 103, 109
Olibula (monastic woman) 168169
Olympius (deacon, Italy) 166
Opilio (defensor) 174
ordinarii 166
ordination (unlawful) 163, 164167
Origen 99, 127
Origenist controversy 6, 60, 97, 127,
128, 196n
originarii 30, 164, 168, 170
Orontes (river) 106
Orosius (b. of Braga) 119
orphanotrophoi 167
orphans 41
Osrhone (e. Syria) 126
Ostia 79
Ostrogoths 114, 172, 173
pagans 6, 32, 52n, 62, 63, 92, 126,
168n
Palestine 62, 86, 98, 103, 104, 127, 128
Palladius (b. of Helenopolis) 205
pallium 189n
pandemic (bubonic) 71
Panopolis (Egypt) 5455
Panormus (bishop of) 153
papal court 124
papal decretals see letters
papal estates 168, 173, 174, 187, 188
papal notaries 188
papal scrinium 25, 28, 122, 188
papyrological evidence 89
Parisinus Latinus 12098 131132
Parma 42
parrhesia 20
Patiens (b. of Lyon) 79
Patrick of Ireland 229
Patricius (comes) 64
patronage 29, 39, 171172, 194 see also
structures of dependence
Paul (apostle) 176
Paul (b., Africa) 181
Paul (deacon, Italy) 169, 170
Paul of Samosata 119n
Paul the Black (b. of Antioch) 24, 2627,
45, 139145, 196, 197
Paul the Jew (b. of Antioch) 126
Paulinus (b. of Fossombrone) 190
Paulinus (b. of Nola) 12, 25, 31, 40n

peculium (clerical property) 165
Pelagius 115118
Pelagianism 6, 30, 32, 97, 99, 113n, 115118,
120n
Pelagians 22, 31, 32
Pelagius I (b. of Rome) 29, 31, 151, 156, 172,
173, 174, 175, 179, 180, 186191, 195, 197,
200
Pelagius II (b. of Rome) 29, 174, 196
Peleponnesian war 62
penance 161, 164, 179n, 181, 198
Pentapolis 75, 80, 108, 158, 159
pentarchy 6
Pentecost 23, 91, 92
people-trafficking 3, 7, 32, 39, 152, 157
peregrini see travellers
persecution 6, 30, 38, 51, 67, 69, 98, 121, 126
Persians 7, 26, 4142, 157, 200
pests 71, 75, 82, 83, 84, 159
Peter (apostle) 179
Peter (b. of Alexandria) 140
Peter (b. of Edessa) 82, 85
Peter Chrysologus (b. of Ravenna) 225
Peter Mongus (b. of Antioch) 105, 107, 124
Peter of Callinicum (b. of Antioch) 26, 145
Peter the Fuller (b. of Antioch) 106, 113n
Petra (Arabia) 54
phantasiasts 27
Philostorgius (historian) 90
Philoxenus (b. of Mabbog) 46n, 123
Phoenicia Libanensis
bishops of 135
Photinus (heretic) 119n
Photinians 150
Photius (b. of Constantinople) 132n
Picenum 148
Pinianus (h. of Melania the Younger) 115
pilots (nautical) 66
pirates 37
Placidia (femina illustris, Italy) 165
plague 26, 30, 40n, 71, 75, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 91,
186
Pliny the younger 15, 25n
Pompeianus (b. of Emesa) 6465
Pontianus (b. of Africa) 128
Pontine islands 45
Potentia (near Salerno) 166

population displacement 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 29, 35,
3769, 172, 176, 193, 200
Posidonius (deacon, Rome) 23
Possidius (b., biographer of Augustine) 40,
181, 196
postal system see letters
Potentia (Apulia) 166
poverty/poor 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 30, 37, 41, 85,
147, 150, 171174, 175177, 179, 187, 196, 197,
201
predestination 118
Prevalitana (Dacia) 133
Priorato de Turrita (Spoleto) 187
Priscillian of Avila 118119, 199
Priscillianism 6, 97, 118119
Priscillianists 31, 113, 130, 199
prisoners of war 4, 29n, 30, 33, 3744, 193
Proba (grandmother of Demetrias) 116
Proclus (b. of Constantinople) 177
Procopius (historian) 73, 84
proscription (of books) 199 see also indices
Prosper of Aquitaine 41, 50, 118
Proterius (b. of Alexandria) 105, 108, 130131,
133134
Ps. Demetrius 16
Ps. Dionysius of Tel-Mahre (chronicler) 84,
85
Ps. Joshua the Stylite 73, 82, 84, 85, 177178
Ps. Libanius 16
Pulcheria (empress) 21, 94, 102, 132, 177
Pylamenes (friend of Synesius) 19
Quartodecimans 98, 112
Quodvultdeus (b. of Carthage) 33
Rabbula (b. of Edessa) 212
rain 71, 80
ransom
of captives 3744, 53, 173, 196, 200
of slaves 40n
Ravenna 42, 43, 45, 74, 172, 173, 194
Reccared (Iberian king) 115
refugees 4, 9, 29n, 37, 38, 4752, 112, 193,
194
Reims 34
relics see gifts/donations
religious dissent 4, 6, 9, 28, 37, 45, 48, 193,
197
religious violence see violence
Remigius (b. of Reims) 226
281
Reparatus (b. of Carthage) 112

Rhegium (Provence) 114
Rhine 37
riots see violence
robbery see theft
Rogation ceremonies 33, 200
Rogatists (Donatist schismatics) 121
Romanitas 33
Romanos Melodos 78
Rome 2, 5n, 7, 12, 17, 23, 28, 30, 32, 49, 50, 52,
53, 57, 58, 61, 74, 81, 82, 83, 89, 102, 103, 115,
150, 151, 155, 172, 173, 185n, 188, 190, 194,
196, 199 see also Old Rome
Basilica of St Peter 110, 188
bishops/see of 25, 31, 32, 48, 51, 89, 97,
104, 106, 107, 110, 113, 124, 132, 154, 156,
163, 170, 171, 173, 179, 187, 191, 193n, 194,
195, 197, 199, 200, 201
fall of 3, 31, 113n, 194, 200
sack of (453, 455) 41, 90n, 113
senate of 41, 42, 50, 194
supremacy of church of 109110
tituli 173n, 180
Romulus (presb., Italy) 164
Rufinus (b.) 151
runaway slaves see slavery
Ruricius (b. of Limoges) 12, 21, 31, 3334, 43,
46, 114, 153, 196
Rusticus (b. of Lyon) 40n
Sabellius (heretic) 113, 119n
Sabinus (b. of Marcellianum [?], Lucania)
165
Sabinus (b. of Italy) 167
sailors 66
Sts Nazarius and Romanus 42, 114
Salvian of Marseille 25
sanctuary see asylum-seekers
Sapaudus (b. of Arles) 187, 189, 195
Sardinia 42, 47, 56, 57, 58, 112, 114
schism 97, 110, 111130
schismatics 197, 199, 200
scribes 53
Scythia 123
Sebastian (papal agent, Dalmatia) 186n
semi-Pelagianism 33, 57, 118
Seneca 15
Sergius (anti-Chalcedonian) 6869, 125
Sergius (b. of Antioch) 138, 141
Sergius (hermit, Nicaea) 143144
Severian (b. of Scythopolis) 104
282
Severian of Gabala 28
Severus (b. of Priorato) 187
Severus of Antioch 13, 20, 2425, 26, 27,
45, 53, 57, 6669, 73, 76, 83, 86, 87, 89,
90, 111, 122127, 138, 140, 153, 196, 200,
202n
Shenoute the Great 54
shrines
of saints 90n, 168
of martyrs 202
Sicily 22, 30n, 4041, 62, 115n, 153154, 155
Sidonius Apollinaris (b. of Clermont) 13, 25,
31, 32, 33, 34, 46, 79, 200
Sigismund (Burgundian king) 34
Silverius (b. of Rome) 28, 45
Silvester (cleric, Italy) 167
Simeon Stylite the Elder 133, 136
Simeon Stylite the Younger 73
simony 8, 188, 193
Simplicius (b. of Rome) 107, 109, 113n, 188
sin-and-punishment syndrome 78, 90, 93
94, 96
Siricius (b. of Rome) 28
Sixtus III (b. of Rome) 115n, 194
slave-trade 37, 39, 147, 151, 183184
slavery/slaves 13, 29n, 30, 4748, 53, 147, 151
152, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 176
social abuses 78, 147170, 193, 197
social exclusion 10, 51, 195, 198, 199
social upheaval 51
Socrates Scholasticus 4142, 9899
Sophocles (playwright) 63
solar phenomena 84, 85
sorcery 119
Sophronius (b. of Edessa) 65
Spain 28, 31, 35, 49, 86, 89, 97, 112, 114, 118
119
Spoleto 114
Squillace (Calabria) 52, 163164
Stasimus (comes) 64
Stephen (b. of Antioch) 106
Stephen (b. of Mabbog) 132
Stephen (deacon, Italy) 164, 179?
structures of dependence 157, 171191, 193 see
also patronage
Suessula (parish of) 187
Suevi 119
Sulpicius Severus 121
Symeon the Stylite (elder) 133

Symmachus (b. of Rome) 30, 31, 39n, 42, 52,
110111, 113, 114, 123, 165, 200
Symmachus (pagan author) 20, 87
synagogues 7n
Synesius of Cyrene (b. of Ptolemais) 12,
1920, 21, 27, 73, 7576, 80, 86, 147, 157,
158163, 198
synods
acta of 110
Carthage 404ce 116
Carthage 418ce 116
Constantinople 544ce 127
Milan 548 ce 59n
Milevis 416 ce 116
Rome 495ce 110
Rome 499 ce 165
Rome 502ce 188
Toledo 400ce 119
Syria 61, 62, 67, 103, 202
bishops of 109, 110
church of 45, 138
Taurmenium (Taormino) (b. of) 153
taxation
iugatio 9496
tax-in-kind (oil tax) 9596, 176, 177
tax extortion 13, 147, 150151, 157
Telanissos (e. of Antioch) 96
tenant farmers 150n
Thagaste 62, 183
Thalassius (b. of Caesarea Cappadocia) 135
Thebes (Upper Egypt) 5455, 108
theft 147, 148, 156, 157, 185
Themistius (deacon, Alexandria) 125
Theoctistus (b. of Beroea) 6364
theodicy 74
Theodora (empress) 5859, 69, 139
Theodore (b. of Alexandria) 140
Theodore (b. of Mopsuestia) 58, 60, 98, 99,
127, 199n
Theodore of Arabia (b. of Bostra) 126127,
142
Theodoret (b. of Cyrrhus) 13, 21, 24, 26, 27,
38, 45, 5051, 52, 58, 60, 6166, 81, 8687,
90, 9496, 104, 112, 127, 149, 156157, 172,
176177, 180, 195, 196, 199n
Theodoric (Ostrogothic king) 21, 41, 108, 111,
113, 178, 179, 195, 196

Theodosius (b. of Alexandria) 26, 126127,
129, 138143
Theodosius (monk) 104
Theodosius II (emperor) 21, 80, 99, 101, 102,
113, 117
Theophanes Confessor (chronicler) 73, 122,
155
Theophilus (b. of Alexandria) 23, 27, 46n,
75, 92, 98, 105n, 158n, 159, 160162,
196n
Theotokos 30n, 9899
Thessalonica 108
thirty-year statute of limitation 178
Thoas (accomplice of Andronicus) 161
Thrace 123
Thrasamund (Vandal king) 5657, 112
Three Chapters controversy 6, 5861, 97,
127128, 131, 154155, 186, 190, 191, 199,
200
Thucydides (historian) 62
Ticianus (presb., Italy) 164
Timostratus (dux) 149
Timothy Aelurus (b. of Alexandria) 26, 46,
105107, 111, 124, 130, 133137, 197, 198
libellus of 133
Timothy Salofaciolus (b. of Alexandria) 107,
197
Tolbiac (Vogliacum) 115
Toledo homiliary 91
torture 52, 53, 130, 159, 160
Tours
bishops of 40
traders 66
travel 3769, 80, 107, 155, 159, 166
travellers 41, 50, 52n
Tripolis 124
Trisagion (hymn) 123
tritheism 97, 127, 129, 138145
Troilus (sophist) 80, 158
tsunami 71, 89
Tuscany 80
Tuscia Annonaria 186n
tutores 167n
unemployment 13, 37
union of 616 145
Ursa (prisoner of war) 39
Ursus (tribune, North Africa) 50
usury 147151, 157
283
Valence 34
Valentine (notarius) 186
Valentinian I (emperor) 150
Valentinian III (emperor) 80, 83, 102, 166,
178
Valentinus (b. of Philippopolis) 134
Valentinus (Roman gnostic) 101, 113
Vandals 7, 27, 30, 32, 33, 47, 48, 49, 61, 62, 107,
112, 113, 119, 121, 154, 194
Varos (b. of Zora) 86
Venefrana 48
vessels (sacred) 34, 85, 136, 154, 166, 187
vicarianus 186
vicarius 186
Victor (b. of Africa) 182
Victor (b. of Beneventum) 167
Victor of Tunnuna 58n
Victor of Vita 83n
Vindobonensis (codex) 131
Vigilius (b. of Rome) 45, 5861, 97n, 128, 154
155, 186, 196
violence 3, 37, 85, 110, 147, 156, 163, 164, 168,
199200
coercion 189190, 195, 199200
domestic violence 156
gang violence 6, 9, 27, 9294
religious violence 6, 7, 8, 28, 38, 45, 97
145, 194, 197
riots 7, 32, 52n, 108
vir illustris 164, 165
Virgin Mary 9899
Visigoths 33, 46, 114, 115, 200
visitator 163164
Vitalian (Gothic general) 123
Vitus (defensor) 188
Viventiolus (b. of Lyon) 228
Volsena 42
Volterra 169
Volturno (church of) 189
war see names of barbarian peoples
wealth/riches 30, 63, 6466, 95, 116, 155, 171
173, 176, 180, 187, 188, 201
Western Oasis (el-Kharga) 5455, 68
widows 30n, 41, 43, 182
women 21, 39, 49, 62, 6566, 68, 116, 151, 158,
169, 170, 184
Xanthippus (primate of Numidia) 153, 184
Xerxes (Persian king) 84
284
Zachariah Scholasticus 73, 122, 131n, 136

Zeno (emperor) 23, 29n, 106, 108109, 113
his Henotikon 107110, 122124, 141
Zeugma (Syria) 156157
Zonaras (historian) 73
Zora (Arabia) 86
Zosimus (b. of Rome) 116
his Tractoria 116117
Zosimus (historian) 79

(VigChr Supp 121) Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil - Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 CE) - A Survey of The Evidence From Episcopal Letters, 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(VigChr Supp 121) Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil - Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410-590 CE) - A Survey of The Evidence From Episcopal Letters, 2013 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisis Management in Late Antiquity (410590 CE)

J. den Boeft B.D. Ehrman J. van Oort

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/vcs

Crisis Management in Late Antiquity

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Crisis in Late Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Studying Late-Antique Crisis Management through Letters . . . . . . . .

Religious Controversies and Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Social Abuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

Breakdown in the Structures of Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Appendix. Ancient Author Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Allen, Neil, Mayer,

P. Allen, B. Neil, W. Mayer, Preaching Poverty in Late

Fathers of the Church (Washington DC, 1947)

So far there has been no study of the processes or ideology of episcopal

3 B. Neil, Imperial Benefactions to the Fifth-Century Roman Church, in eds. G. Nathan,

crisis in late antiquity

such as restoring security and predictability to lives in upheaval. The bishop

power to do something about them, notwithstanding the previous criterion

crisis in late antiquity

crisis in late antiquity

hostilities between Christians and Jews continued to gain in strength.17 In

crisis in late antiquity

success or adequacy of episcopal responses to crisis, and to identify those

24 B. Neil, P. Allen, Displaced Persons: Reflections from Late Antiquity on a Contemporary

studying late-antique crisis management through letters

Leo of Rome,12 Sidonius Apollinaris,13 Theodoret of Cyrrhus14 and Severus of

treatment of papal letters in Jasper and Fuhrmann.20 Gregory the Great

studying late-antique crisis management through letters

In Classical and Christian antiquity there are almost as many definitions of

studying late-antique crisis management through letters

8. Recommendationcommending a person or family to an existing

See Moreau, Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas, pp. 489492.

studying late-antique crisis management through letters

studying late-antique crisis management through letters

While the majority of episcopal letters were addressed to male readers,

studying late-antique crisis management through letters 23

we wish to examine the epistolary output of several late-antique bishops,

studying late-antique crisis management through letters 25

Ed. Thiel, pp. 741990.

See Appendix under Greek authors.

studying late-antique crisis management through letters 27

See Chapter 5 and Case-study 2.

Letters from Rome

studying late-antique crisis management through letters 29

cannot ascribe such behaviour to an ideological shift in relation to the poor.

studying late-antique crisis management through letters

Epp. 4 and 9. See Case-study 2 in Chapter 7.

Because of the numbers in which they survive, the letters of Augustine

See Chapter 7, Case-study 1.

studying late-antique crisis management through letters 33

See Chapter 3, Case-study 2.

On which see the section on Arianism in Chapter 5.

studying late-antique crisis management through letters 35

The local context of late-antique population displacement determined a

of restoration of property upon rescue from captivity (ius postliminii), all of

prisoners is not mentioned in our sources, although it is clear from conciliar

21 Socrates, HE 7.21.16; ed. G.C. Hansen, Sokrates: Kirchengeschichte, GCS NF 1 (Berlin,

Although Gaul offers the richest evidence for episcopal involvement in

signed to monasteries.37 We have examples of bishops who went into hiding,

575, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1930), pp. 468476. See Case-study 2 on DM in Chapter 5

the religion assumed certain characteristics common to Christianity in an